Rosenhain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1922] HCA 41

Rosenhain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1922] HCA 41

The document did not constitute a bill of exchange as required by the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 because the sum payable was not certain at the fixed time provided for payment (sixty days after sight), due to the interest provision that referred to arrival of payment in London, an uncertain event. Further, the alleged custom regarding interest was not sufficiently established and did not overcome the natural meaning of the document's terms.

Parties
Appellants/defendants: Kurt Victor Rosenhain and Rio Olaf Rosenhain, trading as Rosenhain & Co.; Respondent/plaintiff: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 1922
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal allowed; order appealed from reversed and set aside
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Interest on Commercial Instruments, Certainty of Sum Payable, Business Usage
Banking Law Commercial Law Bills of Exchange Interest on Commercial Instruments Certainty of Sum Payable Business Usage

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kurt Victor Rosenhain and Rio Olaf Rosenhain, trading as Rosenhain & Co.

Appellants/defendants

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the document at issue constituted a bill of exchange under the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 given the wording on interest and payment in London
  2. 2 Whether a business custom or usage regarding calculation of interest could affect the legal interpretation of the sum certain requirement

Ratio Decidendi

The document did not constitute a bill of exchange as required by the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 because the sum payable was not certain at the fixed time provided for payment (sixty days after sight), due to the interest provision that referred to arrival of payment in London, an uncertain event. Further, the alleged custom regarding interest was not sufficiently established and did not overcome the natural meaning of the document's terms.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; order appealed from reversed and set aside

Orders

  • The writ of summons and service thereof set aside.
  • The plaintiff to pay the costs of the action and motion to set aside the writ and service thereof and of this appeal.