Gordon v Macgregor [1909] HCA 26

Gordon v Macgregor [1909] HCA 26

The written agreement between the parties was, on the evidence, intended to record the full contract, and no sufficient evidence was adduced that additional terms (as to time for commencement of delivery or minimum girth) formed part of the agreement outside the writing. Therefore, parol evidence rule applies, and the Statute of Frauds defence did not succeed. The amendment to raise this issue after trial was also not warranted on the evidence.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Andrew Gordon; Respondent; Plaintiff: Alexander MacGregor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for the plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Variation of Written Contract by Parol Agreement, Pleadings Amendment, Statute of Frauds
Contract Law Variation of Written Contract by Parol Agreement Pleadings Amendment Statute of Frauds

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

Parties

Andrew Gordon

Appellant; Defendant

Alexander MacGregor

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract, having been reduced to writing after prior parol negotiations, may be varied or supplemented by parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous terms not included in the written document
  2. 2 Whether it was proper for the presiding judge, after the close of evidence, to allow amendment of pleadings to raise new issues based on oral statements
  3. 3 Whether the Statute of Frauds defence was properly raised

Ratio Decidendi

The written agreement between the parties was, on the evidence, intended to record the full contract, and no sufficient evidence was adduced that additional terms (as to time for commencement of delivery or minimum girth) formed part of the agreement outside the writing. Therefore, parol evidence rule applies, and the Statute of Frauds defence did not succeed. The amendment to raise this issue after trial was also not warranted on the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for the plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment for the plaintiff as ordered by the Supreme Court of Queensland.