Ringstad v Gollin and Company Pty Ltd [1924] HCA 57

Ringstad v Gollin and Company Pty Ltd [1924] HCA 57

On proper construction, the contract required delivery of six monthly parcels after prior contract completion, subject to war and other specified events only postponing, not terminating, the obligation. The long delay caused by war did not frustrate or destroy the commercial identity of the contract. Section 4 of the Enemy Contracts Annulment Act 1915 did not justify the defendant’s unilateral cancellation of the contract, which remained enforceable when impediments ceased.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Harold Syr Ringstad (trading as Caning Bales & Co.); Respondent; Defendant: Gollin & Co, Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1924
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged; verdict for the plaintiff restored.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Construction of Contract, Force Majeure Clauses, Frustration of Contract, Damages for Breach of Contract, Enemy Contracts Annulment Act
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Construction of Contract Force Majeure Clauses Frustration of Contract Damages for Breach of Contract Enemy Contracts Annulment Act

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold Syr Ringstad (trading as Caning Bales & Co.)

Appellant; Plaintiff

Gollin & Co, Pty. Ltd.

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of a contract for sale of goods interrupted by war and other contingencies
  2. 2 Whether delay caused by war/force majeure frustrates or terminates contract
  3. 3 Whether the Enemy Contracts Annulment Act 1915 entitled the defendant to terminate the contract

Ratio Decidendi

On proper construction, the contract required delivery of six monthly parcels after prior contract completion, subject to war and other specified events only postponing, not terminating, the obligation. The long delay caused by war did not frustrate or destroy the commercial identity of the contract. Section 4 of the Enemy Contracts Annulment Act 1915 did not justify the defendant’s unilateral cancellation of the contract, which remained enforceable when impediments ceased.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged; verdict for the plaintiff restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged.