Lennon v Scarlett and Co [1921] HCA 42

Lennon v Scarlett and Co [1921] HCA 42

A binding contract was concluded by the exchange of the first two telegrams of 1st June. The request to forward contract did not qualify or delay formation of the contract. The plaintiff’s subsequent attempt to add new terms did not amount to repudiation; nor did the defendant treat it as such. The defendant’s later repudiation entitled the plaintiff to damages measured as the difference between contract price and market value at the contractual time for performance.

Parties
Plaintiff: William Lennon; Defendant: Scarlett & Co.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 1921
Procedural Posture
Special Case Stated / Judgment After Hearing by the Full Court
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages to be assessed by the Principal Registrar. Plaintiff awarded costs of action, to be taxed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Measure of Damages
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Sale of Goods Measure of Damages

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Lennon

Plaintiff

Scarlett & Co.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Case Stated / Judgment After Hearing by the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was a binding contract concluded between the parties by the first two telegrams of 1st June?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff's attempt to add new terms amount to repudiation?
  3. 3 What is the proper measure of damages for anticipatory repudiation by the purchaser under the Goods Act 1915 (Vic)?

Ratio Decidendi

A binding contract was concluded by the exchange of the first two telegrams of 1st June. The request to forward contract did not qualify or delay formation of the contract. The plaintiff’s subsequent attempt to add new terms did not amount to repudiation; nor did the defendant treat it as such. The defendant’s later repudiation entitled the plaintiff to damages measured as the difference between contract price and market value at the contractual time for performance.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages to be assessed by the Principal Registrar. Plaintiff awarded costs of action, to be taxed.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed by the Principal Registrar of the Court
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of action, to be taxed