TROLLOPE V. PETER LLOYD LIMITED

TROLLOPE V. PETER LLOYD LIMITED

There was no evidence capable of establishing that the granting of the Nash franchise was brought about by or materially contributed to by the appellant's efforts; the eventual grant resulted from unrelated circumstances, specifically, Clyde Industries Limited's voluntary relinquishment and recommendation of the respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Charles Trollope; Respondent: Peter Lloyd Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 1954
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Commission Agreements, Causation in Contract, Remuneration for Services
Contract Law Commission Agreements Causation in Contract Remuneration for Services

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Trollope

Appellant

Peter Lloyd Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to remuneration for procuring a franchise for the respondent as per agreement
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's efforts were a material cause in procuring the Nash franchise for the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence capable of establishing that the granting of the Nash franchise was brought about by or materially contributed to by the appellant's efforts; the eventual grant resulted from unrelated circumstances, specifically, Clyde Industries Limited's voluntary relinquishment and recommendation of the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs