Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Sztrochlic [2015] NSWSC 885

Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Sztrochlic [2015] NSWSC 885

The 2012 Guarantee was a binding contract; either by Defendant’s acceptance of Plaintiff’s offer or Plaintiff’s acceptance by conduct. The Guarantee was not a deed. No representations were made by the Plaintiff that would estop enforcement. The 2012 Guarantee covered the debts in question and the Defendant is liable as guarantor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
['guarantee—acceptance by Conduct' 'promissory Estoppel—representation—reasonableness of Reliance' 'deeds—formal Requirements—intention—sealing—conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 38']
['contract Law' 'estoppel' 'commercial Law'] ['guarantee—acceptance by Conduct' 'promissory Estoppel—representation—reasonableness of Reliance' 'deeds—formal Requirements—intention—sealing—conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 38']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 2012 Application and Guarantee were binding as contracts or deeds' 'Whether there was acceptance by conduct' 'Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from enforcing the 2012 Guarantee' 'Whether there was intention to create legal relations' 'Whether the Defendant was liable under the 2003 or 2012 guarantees']

Ratio Decidendi

The 2012 Guarantee was a binding contract; either by Defendant’s acceptance of Plaintiff’s offer or Plaintiff’s acceptance by conduct. The Guarantee was not a deed. No representations were made by the Plaintiff that would estop enforcement. The 2012 Guarantee covered the debts in question and the Defendant is liable as guarantor.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $2,113,129.10 inclusive of interest up to judgment.' "Order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]