Cumming and Company Limited v Hasell [1920] HCA 66

Cumming and Company Limited v Hasell [1920] HCA 66

In the absence of any express or implied stipulation as to the port of shipment, the agreement was too uncertain to constitute a binding contract and did not comply with the Statute of Frauds; thus, no enforceable agreement existed.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Cumming & Company Limited; Respondent; Defendant: Arthur H. Hasell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1920
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Original Jurisdiction / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Uncertainty, Sale of Goods, Statute of Frauds
Contract Law Formation of Contract Uncertainty Sale of Goods Statute of Frauds

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cumming & Company Limited

Appellant; Plaintiff

Arthur H. Hasell

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Original Jurisdiction / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement for sale 'f.o.b.' without stipulation as to port of shipment is sufficiently certain to constitute a binding contract
  2. 2 Whether the Statute of Frauds was complied with

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of any express or implied stipulation as to the port of shipment, the agreement was too uncertain to constitute a binding contract and did not comply with the Statute of Frauds; thus, no enforceable agreement existed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs