Petersen v Moloney [1951] HCA 57

Petersen v Moloney [1951] HCA 57

There was no evidence, apart from evidence disbelieved by the trial judge, to support the plea that Pulbrook had authority to receive the purchase money on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against Moloney for the price, and the earlier judgment against Pulbrook could be discharged and replaced without breaching principles of election between remedies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['authority of Agent' 'ratification' 'alternative Liability' 'election Between Remedies' 'receipt of Purchase Money by Agent']
['contract Law' 'agency Law'] ['authority of Agent' 'ratification' 'alternative Liability' 'election Between Remedies' 'receipt of Purchase Money by Agent']

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 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did Pulbrook have actual authority as agent to receive the purchase money from Moloney on behalf of the plaintiff?' "Was there a ratification by the plaintiff of Pulbrook's receipt of the money?" 'Is the plaintiff precluded from judgment against Moloney due to election after earlier judgment against Pulbrook?']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence, apart from evidence disbelieved by the trial judge, to support the plea that Pulbrook had authority to receive the purchase money on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against Moloney for the price, and the earlier judgment against Pulbrook could be discharged and replaced without breaching principles of election between remedies.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Wholly discharge judgment of Walker J.' 'Adjudge that the plaintiff recover from defendant Moloney the sum of £700 with costs.' 'Adjudge that the plaintiff recover nothing from defendant Pulbrook.' 'No order as to costs of Pulbrook in either court.']