Hart v Macdonald [1910] HCA 13

Hart v Macdonald [1910] HCA 13

Though the contract implied an obligation for the defendant to produce sufficient butter to pay for the plant within a reasonable time, the plaintiff bore the onus of proving that under the actual conditions (including drought), a reasonable time had elapsed for such performance, and the evidence did not satisfy this burden; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

Parties
Appellant: Mary Hart; Respondent: Charles Arthur MacDonald
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of High Court of Australia Following Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff nonsuited
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Reasonable Time for Performance, Construction of Contract, Onus of Proof
Contract Law Implied Terms Reasonable Time for Performance Construction of Contract Onus of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Hart

Appellant

Charles Arthur MacDonald

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of High Court of Australia Following Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract contained an implied obligation for the defendant to produce sufficient butter to pay for the plant within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff discharged the onus of proving that a reasonable time had elapsed under the actual conditions for payment
  3. 3 Whether evidence of surrounding circumstances and correspondence was admissible for determining reasonable time

Ratio Decidendi

Though the contract implied an obligation for the defendant to produce sufficient butter to pay for the plant within a reasonable time, the plaintiff bore the onus of proving that under the actual conditions (including drought), a reasonable time had elapsed for such performance, and the evidence did not satisfy this burden; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff nonsuited

Orders

  • Plaintiff nonsuited
  • Appeal allowed