Global Alliance Network Pty Ltd v Sensis Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 163

Global Alliance Network Pty Ltd v Sensis Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 163

The contracts for Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth Yellow Pages required a positive and unequivocal confirmation from the appellant ('go ahead') before publication. Mere silence or the note stating 'Will confirm others later' was insufficient to satisfy the condition precedent. Therefore, the respondent was not authorized to publish or claim payment for those contracts, and judgment for the respondent in respect of those contracts was in error. The appellant admitted liability only for the Brisbane contract.

Parties
Appellant: Global Alliance Network Pty Ltd; Respondent: Sensis Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Oral Variation of Contracts, Condition Precedent, Advertising Contracts, Admissions in Pleadings
Contracts Evidence Oral Variation of Contracts Condition Precedent Advertising Contracts Admissions in Pleadings

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

Parties

Global Alliance Network Pty Ltd

Appellant

Sensis Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement created a condition precedent requiring a 'go ahead' for publication under advertising contracts
  2. 2 Whether silence after advertising proofs constitutes acceptance or 'go ahead' under the contracts
  3. 3 Whether admissions in a superseded defence could be relied upon in a cross-claim

Ratio Decidendi

The contracts for Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth Yellow Pages required a positive and unequivocal confirmation from the appellant ('go ahead') before publication. Mere silence or the note stating 'Will confirm others later' was insufficient to satisfy the condition precedent. Therefore, the respondent was not authorized to publish or claim payment for those contracts, and judgment for the respondent in respect of those contracts was in error. The appellant admitted liability only for the Brisbane contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with respect to Orders 1, 2, 3 and 5 made by Judge S J Gibb on 29 September 2006 and dismissed with respect to Order 4
  • Appellant to pay respondent the sum of $20,513.90; such judgment to take effect as at 29 September 2006