Tooheys v Blinkhorn [2008] NSWSC 499

Tooheys v Blinkhorn [2008] NSWSC 499

The letters of 31 January 2008 constituted offers capable of acceptance, and upon acceptance by the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth defendants (by returning the signed forms before withdrawal), binding contracts arose obliging the plaintiff to pay the redundancy sums as set out in those letters. The 'estimate' and 'outlined' language did not prevent contractual effect. No binding contract arose with the second or seventh defendants as there was no unqualified acceptance before the offer was withdrawn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Declarations made as to which redundancy agreements were binding; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'offer and Acceptance' 'mistake (contract)' 'redundancy Entitlements' 'rescission and Rectification']
['contracts' 'employment Law' 'equity'] ['contract Formation' 'offer and Acceptance' 'mistake (contract)' 'redundancy Entitlements' 'rescission and Rectification']

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

Civil / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the letters of 31 January 2008 constituted offers capable of acceptance giving rise to binding contracts for redundancy payments at the stated figures' 'Whether any binding contract was created or acceptance occurred before the plaintiff withdrew the offer as to second and seventh defendants' 'Whether the plaintiff could rescind or rectify contracts for mistake']

Ratio Decidendi

The letters of 31 January 2008 constituted offers capable of acceptance, and upon acceptance by the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth defendants (by returning the signed forms before withdrawal), binding contracts arose obliging the plaintiff to pay the redundancy sums as set out in those letters. The 'estimate' and 'outlined' language did not prevent contractual effect. No binding contract arose with the second or seventh defendants as there was no unqualified acceptance before the offer was withdrawn.

Court Disposition

Declarations made as to which redundancy agreements were binding; costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['Declare letters dated 31 January 2008 from plaintiff to second and seventh defendants do not constitute binding contractual agreements between plaintiff and those defendants.' 'Declare letters dated 31 January 2008 addressed to first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth defendants constitute binding contractual...