GEORGE AND COURTIER PTY LTD v TERREY and ORS [1996] NSWCA 206

GEORGE AND COURTIER PTY LTD v TERREY and ORS [1996] NSWCA 206

The trial judge was correct in finding that the second respondent was an agent for the appellant and not a reseller or principal. The contract for the supply of the fruit sorter was between the appellant (George and Courtier Pty Ltd) and the first respondents (Terrey and others), as evidenced by the conduct, conversations, and supplementary documents. The breach of contract—namely, the term relating to fitness for purpose—was not the subject matter of appeal, and the parties' intentions as ascertained from the whole factual matrix supported the finding as to contractual parties.

Parties
Appellant: George and Courtier Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Brian Terrey and others (First Respondents); Second Respondent: Second Respondent (Machinery Agents)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Agency, Contract Formation, Fitness for Purpose, Interpretation of Contractual Parties
Contract Law Agency Contract Formation Fitness for Purpose Interpretation of Contractual Parties

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George and Courtier Pty Ltd

Appellant

Brian Terrey and others (First Respondents)

First Respondent

Second Respondent (Machinery Agents)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for the supply of machinery was between the first respondents and the appellant or the first respondents and the second respondent
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent acted as an agent, principal, or reseller
  3. 3 Whether it was a term of the contract that the machinery supplied be reasonably fit for purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct in finding that the second respondent was an agent for the appellant and not a reseller or principal. The contract for the supply of the fruit sorter was between the appellant (George and Courtier Pty Ltd) and the first respondents (Terrey and others), as evidenced by the conduct, conversations, and supplementary documents. The breach of contract—namely, the term relating to fitness for purpose—was not the subject matter of appeal, and the parties' intentions as ascertained from the whole factual matrix supported the finding as to contractual parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.