Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer [1919] HCA 64

Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer [1919] HCA 64

The collateral contract alleged by the plaintiff was inconsistent with the express right to terminate in the written lease; the two could not stand together. The collateral agreement would modify a right expressly granted by the lease, thus making it unenforceable at law. Therefore, the respondent's plea was good, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Hoyt's Proprietary Limited; Respondent; Defendant: Cosens Spencer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 1919
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Collateral Contracts, Lease Agreements, Parol Evidence Rule
Contract Law Property Law Collateral Contracts Lease Agreements Parol Evidence Rule

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 3 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hoyt's Proprietary Limited

Appellant; Plaintiff

Cosens Spencer

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a collateral agreement enforceable when inconsistent with the terms of a principal written contract?
  2. 2 Can an agreement contemporaneous with a lease alter rights expressly granted by the lease?

Ratio Decidendi

The collateral contract alleged by the plaintiff was inconsistent with the express right to terminate in the written lease; the two could not stand together. The collateral agreement would modify a right expressly granted by the lease, thus making it unenforceable at law. Therefore, the respondent's plea was good, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.