Crabtree-Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising & Addressing Co Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 49

Crabtree-Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising & Addressing Co Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 49

Peter McWilliam had neither actual nor ostensible authority to enter into the contract to purchase the printing machine and ancillary equipment on behalf of the respondent, and neither ratification nor estoppel applied; thus, the respondent was not bound by his act.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['authority of Agents' 'ostensible Authority' 'actual Authority' 'ratification' 'estoppel']
['contract Law' 'company Law'] ['authority of Agents' 'ostensible Authority' 'actual Authority' 'ratification' 'estoppel']

Source-derived case record

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did Peter McWilliam have actual or ostensible authority to enter into the contract for purchase?' "Was the respondent company bound by Peter McWilliam's actions?" 'Was there ratification or estoppel in respect of the contract?']

Ratio Decidendi

Peter McWilliam had neither actual nor ostensible authority to enter into the contract to purchase the printing machine and ancillary equipment on behalf of the respondent, and neither ratification nor estoppel applied; thus, the respondent was not bound by his act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']