Goldsbrough, Mort and Co Ltd v Carter [1914] HCA 80

Goldsbrough, Mort and Co Ltd v Carter [1914] HCA 80

The High Court (Griffith C.J., Barton J.; Isaacs J. dissenting) held the contract was for the sale of specific sheep actually in existence at the date of contract, with numbers being estimates and not warranties. Defendants were not liable for non-delivery because all sheep not delivered had died without their fault before delivery. There was no warranty as to number, hence no breach of contract supporting damages.

Parties
Appellant: Goldsbrough, Mort & Co. Ltd.; Respondent: A. H. Carter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1914
Procedural Posture
Contract—appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of NSW
Outcome
appeal allowed; verdict for defendants entered; respondent to pay costs
Legal Topics
Specific Goods, Warranty, Breach of Contract, Sale by Description
Contracts Sale of Goods Specific Goods Warranty Breach of Contract Sale by Description

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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldsbrough, Mort & Co. Ltd.

Appellant

A. H. Carter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract—appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the contract for the sale of specific sheep with an implied warranty as to number?
  2. 2 Is there a breach of warranty or only estimated numbers?
  3. 3 Are the defendants liable for failure to deliver the estimated number of sheep?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court (Griffith C.J., Barton J.; Isaacs J. dissenting) held the contract was for the sale of specific sheep actually in existence at the date of contract, with numbers being estimates and not warranties. Defendants were not liable for non-delivery because all sheep not delivered had died without their fault before delivery. There was no warranty as to number, hence no breach of contract supporting damages.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; verdict for defendants entered; respondent to pay costs

Orders

  • Judgment below discharged
  • Verdict set aside