B & R Stevens Transport Pty Ltd v Burkitt [2016] NSWCA 259

B & R Stevens Transport Pty Ltd v Burkitt [2016] NSWCA 259

The 26 May 2009 invoice and disbursement instructions did not purport to be a contractual document or the full expression of the parties' obligations, and therefore did not supersede or invalidate the oral agreement that $50,000 would be paid by deductions after settlement. The primary judge's unchallenged factual findings supported that the bargain was for a truck with work for $400,000, not a sale of goodwill giving BRST priority or guaranteed work. The appellant received the opportunity for work that had been promised, and the later cessation of work did not establish breach.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['oral Agreement for Sale of Prime Mover' 'collateral Agreement' 'goodwill' 'going Concern' 'appeal by Way of Rehearing']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'goods and Services Tax'] ['oral Agreement for Sale of Prime Mover' 'collateral Agreement' 'goodwill' 'going Concern' 'appeal by Way of Rehearing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the oral agreement requiring payment of a further $50,000 by deductions after settlement was invalid because it was inconsistent with the 26 May 2009 document stating a purchase price of $350,000.' 'Whether the transaction included a component of goodwill, business or rights beyond a truck with work, and whether the appellant failed to receive what it bargained for.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 26 May 2009 invoice and disbursement instructions did not purport to be a contractual document or the full expression of the parties' obligations, and therefore did not supersede or invalidate the oral agreement that $50,000 would be paid by deductions after settlement. The primary judge's unchallenged factual findings supported that the bargain was for a truck with work for $400,000, not a sale of goodwill giving BRST priority or guaranteed work. The appellant received the opportunity for work that had been promised, and the later cessation of work did not establish breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed, with costs.']