See v Cohen [1923] HCA 66

See v Cohen [1923] HCA 66

The contract was, on its terms, one for the payment of differences dependent upon an uncertain event (the total of future dividends), with no real obligation to deliver wheat certificates; thus, it constituted a wagering contract under the relevant statutes and was void and unenforceable.

Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Grafton Norris; Defendants: Philip Cohen and Hugh Augustus Wolrige trading as P. Cohen & Co.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 1923
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Single Justice of the High Court (starke J.) to the Full Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Judgment for the defendants; plaintiff to pay the costs of the action and the appeal.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Wagering Contracts, Enforceability of Contracts, Settlement of Differences
Contract Law Gaming and Wagering Law Sale of Goods Wagering Contracts Enforceability of Contracts Settlement of Differences

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Grafton Norris

Plaintiff

Philip Cohen and Hugh Augustus Wolrige trading as P. Cohen & Co.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Single Justice of the High Court (starke J.) to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of wheat certificates was a wagering contract and thus unenforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the contract required delivery of certificates or permitted settlement by payment of differences only.
  3. 3 Whether the basis of the contract had failed due to the absence of further dividend declarations.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was, on its terms, one for the payment of differences dependent upon an uncertain event (the total of future dividends), with no real obligation to deliver wheat certificates; thus, it constituted a wagering contract under the relevant statutes and was void and unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Judgment for the defendants; plaintiff to pay the costs of the action and the appeal.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay the defendants their costs of the action and of the appeal.