Gould v Day & Anor [1999] NSWCA 61
The appeal failed because the documents relied on did not make Mr Gould, Mr Day or Mr Manly parties to the alleged contracts, there was no basis on the available appeal materials to disturb the findings that there were no binding contracts and no proven damage, and the notice of appeal did not challenge the conclusion that loss had not been proved.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Concerning Alleged Breach of Agreement / Appeal From the District Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['breach of Agreement' 'parties to Contract' 'binding Contracts' 'proof of Damage' 'appeal Record']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Alleged Breach of Agreement / Appeal From the District Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the documents relied on by the appellant were binding contracts involving Mr Gould, Mr Day and Mr Manly as parties.' 'Whether the appellant established damage before the District Court.' "Whether the materials and grounds before the Court of Appeal disclosed any basis to disturb the District Court's dismissal of the claim."]
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal failed because the documents relied on did not make Mr Gould, Mr Day or Mr Manly parties to the alleged contracts, there was no basis on the available appeal materials to disturb the findings that there were no binding contracts and no proven damage, and the notice of appeal did not challenge the conclusion that loss had not been proved.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment