Fortune Food Manufacturer Pty Ltd v K Young Trading Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 407

Fortune Food Manufacturer Pty Ltd v K Young Trading Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 407

The only evidence before the Magistrate showed the supply of canola oil was referable to purchase orders from Fortune Soy, not the outstanding debt to Fortune Food; the Magistrate's finding to the contrary was unsupported and constituted an error of law. Further, Ms Young's guarantee was supported by consideration as forbearance to sue was given at her request.

Parties
Plaintiff: Fortune Food Manufacturer Pty Ltd; First Defendant: K Young Trading Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Katerina Young
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment (supreme Court, on Appeal From Local Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Guarantee, Consideration, Debt Recovery, Error of Law on Appeal
Contract Law Guarantee Consideration Debt Recovery Error of Law on Appeal

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

Parties

Fortune Food Manufacturer Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

K Young Trading Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Katerina Young

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment (supreme Court, on Appeal From Local Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate made an error of law in finding the debt was discharged by supply of canola oil
  2. 2 Whether the supply of canola oil by K Young Trading was referable to the outstanding debt or to a new contract
  3. 3 Whether the guarantee given by the Second Defendant was supported by consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The only evidence before the Magistrate showed the supply of canola oil was referable to purchase orders from Fortune Soy, not the outstanding debt to Fortune Food; the Magistrate's finding to the contrary was unsupported and constituted an error of law. Further, Ms Young's guarantee was supported by consideration as forbearance to sue was given at her request.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Extension of time granted to 30 September 2009 for filing appeal summons
  • Appeal allowed