Bulgin & Stockwell Pty Ltd v Reebok Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] NSWCA 470

Bulgin & Stockwell Pty Ltd v Reebok Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] NSWCA 470

The appeal failed because Bulgin & Stockwell was bound by an unqualified concession that it would be liable if the trial judge found that the express instruction about weekend storage had been given, and the trial judge did make that finding. In any event, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the Acknowledgment containing the standard conditions had been received by Reebok and its terms accepted, so no new trial was warranted on incorporation. The appeal against John Fletcher International also failed because Bulgin & Stockwell did not prove reliance on the alleged representation or causation of the loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court Proceedings Concerning Breach of Contract, Carriage and Storage of Goods, Exclusion Clauses, and Third Party Liability / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'storage and Carriage of Goods' 'theft of Goods' 'exclusion Clause' 'standard Terms of Contract' 'incorporation of Contractual Terms' 'third Party Indemnity or Contribution' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'reliance and Causation' 'concession at Trial']
['contract' 'trade Practices' 'carriage of Goods' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Contract' 'storage and Carriage of Goods' 'theft of Goods' 'exclusion Clause' 'standard Terms of Contract' 'incorporation of Contractual Terms' 'third Party Indemnity or Contribution' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'reliance and Causation' 'concession at Trial']

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

Appeal From District Court Proceedings Concerning Breach of Contract, Carriage and Storage of Goods, Exclusion Clauses, and Third Party Liability / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bulgin & Stockwell could rely on standard conditions printed on an Acknowledgment to avoid, exclude or limit liability to Reebok for the stolen goods.' "Whether the trial judge's failure to determine incorporation of the standard conditions required a new trial." "Whether Bulgin & Stockwell was bound by a concession that it would be liable if the goods were stored at its premises contrary to Reebok's instructions." 'Whether Bulgin & Stockwell proved entitlement to contribution or indemnity from John Fletcher International based on alleged contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because Bulgin & Stockwell was bound by an unqualified concession that it would be liable if the trial judge found that the express instruction about weekend storage had been given, and the trial judge did make that finding. In any event, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the Acknowledgment containing the standard conditions had been received by Reebok and its terms accepted, so no new trial was warranted on incorporation. The appeal against John Fletcher International also failed because Bulgin & Stockwell did not prove reliance on the alleged representation or causation of the loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']