Gelling v Crespin [1917] HCA 44

Gelling v Crespin [1917] HCA 44

Where parties reduce a contract to writing, its terms cannot be varied by evidence of prior negotiations. The contract, properly construed, required delivery of wheat of fair average quality of the 1914-15 season from New South Wales, but did not specify particular goods. Performance was not excused by the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.) or the Government’s acquisition of wheat, as the respondents failed to prove that sufficient wheat, either in or in transit to other States, could not have been obtained to fulfil the contract.

Parties
Appellant: Gelling & Sons Ltd.; Respondents: George Crespin and George H. G. G. Crespin & Sons
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 1917
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Order of Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Impossibility of Performance, Construction of Written Contracts, State Acquisition of Property, Frustration of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Impossibility of Performance Construction of Written Contracts State Acquisition of Property Frustration of Contract

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gelling & Sons Ltd.

Appellant

George Crespin and George H. G. G. Crespin & Sons

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Order of Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior negotiations are admissible to qualify the terms of a written contract for sale of goods
  2. 2 Whether the contract required delivery of wheat grown in New South Wales or allowed other sources
  3. 3 Whether the acquisition of wheat by the Government under the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.) rendered performance of the contract impossible and excused non-delivery

Ratio Decidendi

Where parties reduce a contract to writing, its terms cannot be varied by evidence of prior negotiations. The contract, properly construed, required delivery of wheat of fair average quality of the 1914-15 season from New South Wales, but did not specify particular goods. Performance was not excused by the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.) or the Government’s acquisition of wheat, as the respondents failed to prove that sufficient wheat, either in or in transit to other States, could not have been obtained to fulfil the contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales set aside
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff (Gelling & Sons Ltd.) in the sum of £3,328 2s. 6d.