PANGEA RESOURCES LTD v GENERAL CREDITS LTD [1992] NSWCA 178

PANGEA RESOURCES LTD v GENERAL CREDITS LTD [1992] NSWCA 178

A minor underpayment ($200 out of $10,000) did not constitute a failure of 'due performance' under the settlement agreement and was too trivial, in context, to deprive the appellant of the settlement's benefit. However, the majority found that payment of $9,800 rather than the full $10,000 within the fixed time did not constitute due performance, and so the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Pangea Resources Ltd; Respondent: General Credits Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court, Commercial Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Construction of Commercial Contract, Breach of Contract, Due Performance, Compromise of Debt
Contract Law Construction of Commercial Contract Breach of Contract Due Performance Compromise of Debt

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pangea Resources Ltd

Appellant

General Credits Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court, Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant gave 'due performance' of obligations under a settlement agreement so as to be released from a large debt
  2. 2 Whether a minor default ($200) in payment or a delay in payment of $9,800 out of $10,000 amounted to a breach sufficient to avoid the compromise
  3. 3 Construction of 'due performance' under the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

A minor underpayment ($200 out of $10,000) did not constitute a failure of 'due performance' under the settlement agreement and was too trivial, in context, to deprive the appellant of the settlement's benefit. However, the majority found that payment of $9,800 rather than the full $10,000 within the fixed time did not constitute due performance, and so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs