Tu v Primary Contracting Services Pty Ltd (trading as Australian Contracting Solutions) [2009] NSWCA 7

Tu v Primary Contracting Services Pty Ltd (trading as Australian Contracting Solutions) [2009] NSWCA 7

The appeal failed because Poumeaton, through the 16 November 2005 meeting and the surrounding circumstances, implicitly agreed to pay or ensure payment of the outstanding invoices and to treat requests for labour supplied to the business as made by or on behalf of Poumeaton; continued supply of labour provided consideration. The appellant was bound by the guarantee he signed. The alleged statements did not convey a misrepresentation that the appellant would not incur personal liability, there was no evidence that he relied on any such representation, and the commercial circumstances did not make the guarantee unjust under s 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court Judgment Enforcing a Guarantee / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['guarantee' 'consideration' 'oral Agreement to Accept Responsibility for Invoices' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unjust Contract']
['contract Law' 'trade Practices' 'contracts Review Act'] ['guarantee' 'consideration' 'oral Agreement to Accept Responsibility for Invoices' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unjust 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From District Court Judgment Enforcing a Guarantee / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Poumeaton Enterprises Pty Limited orally agreed to accept liability for debts to the respondent incurred before settlement of its purchase of the abattoir business.' "Whether consideration supported Poumeaton's promise to pay or ensure payment of outstanding invoices." 'Whether the appellant was bound by the written guarantee he signed.' 'Whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether the guarantee was unjust within the meaning of s 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because Poumeaton, through the 16 November 2005 meeting and the surrounding circumstances, implicitly agreed to pay or ensure payment of the outstanding invoices and to treat requests for labour supplied to the business as made by or on behalf of Poumeaton; continued supply of labour provided consideration. The appellant was bound by the guarantee he signed. The alleged statements did not convey a misrepresentation that the appellant would not incur personal liability, there was no evidence that he relied on any such representation, and the commercial circumstances did not make the guarantee unjust under s 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']