Summary LPC Notes Advanced Commercial Litigation Revision notes (Distinction) 2022

Summary LPC Notes Advanced Commercial Litigation Revision notes (Distinction) 2022 Contents Logic 8 Express Terms – Identification (1) 8 By Signature 8 I – THE EFFECT OF SIGNATURE 8 L‟Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 8 II – EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGNATURE RULE 9 Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing [1951] 1 KB 805 10 Toll (FGCT) v Alphapharm (2004) 219 CLR 165 11 III – CRITICISM OF THE RULE 13 By Notice 13 I – TIMING 14 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197. 14 II – KNOWLEDGE/NOTICE 16 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 17 III – UNUSUAL TERMS 19 Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (“The Mikhail Lermontov”) (1991) 22 NSWLR 1 20 By Course of Dealing 21 Rinaldi & Patroni v Precision Mouldings (1986) WAR 131 22 Balmain New Ferry v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379 23 Express Terms – Identification (2) 24 Parol Evidence Rule 24 I – DETERMINING WHETHER A CONTRACT IS WHOLLY WRITTEN. 24 State Rail Authority of NSW v Heath Outdoor (1986) 7 NSWLR 170 25 II – EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE 27 Hoyt‟s v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133 28 Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 274 29 III – PRE-CONTRACTUAL STATEMENTS 31 Equuscorp v Glengallan Investments (2004) 218 CLR 271 33 JJ Savage & Sons v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435 34 Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370 35 Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors) [1965] 2 All ER 65 36 Express Terms – Construction 37 Principles of Construction 37 Parol Evidence Rule 38 I – SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES 38 Western Export Services v Jireh International [2011] HCA 45 39 Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640 41 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37 ................................................................................................................................................. 41 II – APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES 44 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 CLR 45 44 Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 46 Exemption Clauses 48 III – CONTRA PREFERENTUM 48 Darlington Futures v Delco Aust (1986) 161 CLR 500 48 IV – NEGLIGENCE 50 Davis v Pearce Parking Station (1954) 91 CLR 642 50 V – FOUR CORNERS 52 Thomas National Transport (Melbourne) Pty Ltd v May & Baker (Australia) Pty Ltd (1966) 115 CLR 353 52 Implied Terms 53 Implied In Fact 54 Byrne v Australian Airlines; Frew v Australian Airlines (1995) 185 CLR 410 56 Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 59 Implied In Law 61 University of Western Australia v Gray (2009) 179 FCR 346 61 Implied From Custom 63 Con-Stan Industries of Aust v Norwich Winterthur Ins (Aust) (1986) 160 CLR 226 63 Australian Consumer Law (ACL) 64 Overview of ACL Provisions 64 INTRODUCTION TO ACL 64 CHAPTER 2 – GENERAL PROTECTIONS 65 Part 2 – 1: Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (ss 18-19) 65 Part 2 – 2: Unconscionable Conduct (ss 20-22) 65 Part 2 – 3: Unfair contract terms (ss 23-28) 66 CHAPTER 3 – SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS 69 Part 3 – 1: Unfair practices (ss 29-38) 69 Part 3 – 2: Consumer Transactions (ss 51-68) 69 CHAPTER 5 – ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES (ss 218-287) 71 Standard Form Contracting 73 I – INTRODUCTION 73 II – COSTS AND BENEFITS OF STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS 73 III – THE ROLE OF COMPETITION 74 IV – MARKET FAILURE AND SOCIAL FORCES 75 Frustration 76 Introduction to Frustration 76 I – THE TEST FOR FRUSTRATION 76 II – OTHER TESTS PROVIDED IN EARLIER THEORIES 77 Taylor v Caldwell [1863] EWHC QB J1 77 Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 79 Brisbane City Council v Group Projects (1979) 145 CLR 143 81 Limitations and Consequences 84 I – LIMITATIONS 84 II – CONSEQUENCES 85 Termination 85 By Agreement 85 I – ORIGINAL AGREEMENT 85 II – SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT 86 By Failure of Contingent Condition 87 I – FOUR CATEGORIES OF CC 88 II – THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE 89 III – CONSEQUENCES OF NON-FULFILMENT 91 IV – RESTICTIONS ON RIGHT TO TERMINATE FOR NON- FULFILMENT OF CONDITION 95 By Breach 96 I – WHAT CONSTITUTES BREACH OF CONTRACT? 96 II – TERMINATION FOR BREACH OF A CONDITION 97 Tramways Advertising v Luna Park (1938) 61 CLR 286 98 Associated Newspapers v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322 101 III – TERMINATION FOR BREACH OF AN INTERMEDIATE TERM 103 Hongkong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 QB 26 103 Ankar v National Westminster Finance (Aust) (1987) 162 CLR 549 105 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine (2007) 233 CLR 115 ............................................................................................................................................... 106 By Repudiation 107 I – THE ABSENCE OF WILLINGNESS OR ABILITY 110 II – ILLUSTRATIVE CASES 111 Carr v JA Berriman (1953) 89 CLR 327 111 Progressive Mailing House v Tabali (1985) 157 CLR 17 112 Maple Flock v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) [1934] 1 KB 148 ............................................................................................................................................... 114 DTR Nominees v Mona Homes (1978) 138 CLR 423 114 By Delay 116 I – WHERE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE 116 II – WHERE TIME IS NOT OF THE ESSENCE 117 Louinder v Leis (1982) 149 CLR 509 119 Laurinda v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (1989) 166 CLR 623 120 Restrictions on Termination 121 Ready and Willing 121 Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 122 Election 124 I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ELECTION 124 Tropical Traders v Goonan (1964) 111 CLR 41 126 Immer (No 145) v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) (1993) 182 CLR 26 128 II – AFFIRMATION 129 Consequences for Aggrieved Party 129 Consequences for Breaching Party 130 Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159 131 III – TERMINATION 132 Consequences for Aggrieved Party 132 Consequences for Breaching Party 133 IV – RIGHT TO CURE A BREACH 133 Estoppel 133 Waiver 133 Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570.134 Relief against Forfeiture 134 I – UNCONSCIENTIOUS EXERCISE OF LEGAL RIGHTS 135 Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406 136 Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 137 Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 217 CLR 315 138 Heads of Damage 139 Compensation Principle 139 Expectation Damages 140 I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES 140 II – DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF OBLIGATION TO RECTIFY/REPAIR ................................................................................................................................................... 141 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 141 Tabcorp Holdings v Bowen Investments (2009) 236 CLR 272 142 Reliance Damages 144 I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES 144 Commonwealth v Amann Aviation (1991) 174 CLR 64 145 Loss of Chance Damages 146 Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301 147 Gains-Based Damages 148 Limits on Damages 148 Causation and Remoteness 148 I – CAUSATION 148 II – REMOTENESS 149 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 ............................................................................................................................................... 150 III – ILLUSTRATIVE CASES 151 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 151 Stuart v Condor Commercial Insulation [2006] NSWCA 334 152 Mitigation 153 Burns v MAN Automotive (Aust) (1986) 161 CLR 653 155 Simonious Vischer & Co v Holt & Thompson [1979] 2 NSWLR 322 156 Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1 157 Disappointment and Distress 157 Baltic Shipping v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 158 Contributory Negligence 159 Termination under Express Term 159 Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620 160 Liquidated Damages 161 The Penalties Doctrine and Terms Providing for Payment (Breach) 161 I – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND PENALTIES 161 II – ILLUSTRATIVE CASES 162 Esanda Finance Corp v Plessnig (1989) 166 CLR 131 162 Penalties and Terms Providing for Payment (Not Involving Breach) 163 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205 163 t c 165 Requirements of an Action for Debt 165 I – ENTIRE OBLIGATIONS 165 II – DIVISIBLE OBLIGATIONS 165 Steele v Tardiani (1946) 72 CLR 386 165 III – LEGISLATION 166 Nemeth v Bayswater Road Pty Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 406 166 IV – SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE 167 Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176 167 Bolton v Mahdeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009 167 V – PAYMENT INDEPENDENT OF PERFORMANCE 168 McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 457 168 Deposits 169 Bot v Ristevski [1981] VR 120 170 Misrepresentation and Rescission 170 Misrepresentation 170 I – OVERVIEW 170 II – MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT 171 Smith v Land & House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7 171 Fitzpatrick v Michel (1928) 28 SR (NSW) 285 172 Public Trustee v Taylor [1978] VR 289 173 III – POSITIVE MISREPRESENTATION 173 Davies v London & Provincial Marine Insurance Co (1878) 8 Ch D 469 174 McKenzie v McDonald [1927] VLR 134 174 IV – RELIANCE BY THE REPRESENTEE 175 Rescission 175 I – RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM 175 Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216 175 Brown v Smitt (1924) 34 CLR 160 176 Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (1995) 184 CLR 102 177 II – BARS TO RESCISSION 178 Watt v Westhoven [1933] VLR 458 178 Coastal Estates v Melevende [1965] VR 433 179 Misleading or Deceptive Conduct 179 Overview 179 The Trade or Commerce Limitation 179 Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594 180 O‟Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107 181 Houghton v Arms (2006) 225 CLR 553 181 The Relevant Audience 182 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 182 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 182 Misleading Conduct 183 I – SILENCE 183 Mistake 183 Overview 183 I – TERMINOLOGY: TYPES OF MISTAKES 183 II – HOW THE LAW SHOULD RESPOND TO MISTAKE 184 III – REMEDY: RESCISSION V RECTIFICATION 184 Common Mistake 185 I – COMMON LAW: CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH 185 McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 185 II – COMMON LAW RESPONSE: IS RELIEF PROVIDED? 186 Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161 186 III – RESCISSION IN EQUITY 188 Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 188 Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage (International) [2003] QB 679 189 Svanosio v McNamara (1956) 96 CLR 186 190 Rectification for Common Mistake 190 Maralinga v Major Enterprises (1973) 128 CLR 336 190 Pukallus v Cameron (1982) 180 CLR 447 192 Mutual Mistake 193 Unilateral Mistake as to Terms 193 I – COMMON LAW VOID AND EQUITY (RESCISSION) 193 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 193 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 194 II – RECTIFICATION 195 Leibler v Air New Zealand (No 2) [1991] 1 VR 1 195 Mistakenly Signed Documents: Non Est Factum 196 Petelin v Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 355 196 Mistake as to Identity 197 I – PARTIES NOT FACE TO FACE 197 II – PARTIES FACE TO FACE 198 Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 198 Electronic Transactions 199 Duress 199 I – OVERVIEW 199 II – BASIC ELEMENTS OF DURESS 199 Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] 1 AC 366 199 III – DURESS AND COERCION OF THE PERSON 200 Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 201 Undue Influence 202 I – OVERVIEW 202 II – CLASSES OF INFLUENCE 202 Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113 202 III – REBUTTING THE PRESUMPTION 204 Westmelton (Vic) v Archer and Schulman [1982] VR 305 204 Unconscionable Dealing 205 I – OVERVIEW 205 II – ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE 205 III – MODERN APPLICATIONS 206 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 206 Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 207 Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 209 Third Party Impropriety 210 I – THREE PARTY SITUATIONS 210 II – RULE IN YERKEY V JONES 211 Garcia v National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395 211 Unconscionable conduct under statute 213 I – PART 2-2 OF THE ACL 213 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings (2003) 214 CLR 51 214 II – NSW Contracts Review Act 215 Logic • Principles of Private Law is a bit of an introduction to Contracts. There is a lot of material to cover, we will inevitably skim over some material. • Contract law is the study of legal obligations voluntarily assumed by consenting parties in an agreement. o The course focusses on understanding the nature, significance and operation of legal agreements in different context. Express Terms – Identification (1) By Signature (Textbook, 12.05 – 12.30/Casebook, 12.05 – 12.40) I – THE EFFECT OF SIGNATURE • General Rule: Where a person signs a contractual document, they will be bound by the terms regardless of whether they have read or understood the terms (L‟Estrange v Graucob) o NB: Signature cases have nothing to do with notice, course of dealings, unusual terms or any other factors – these are usually a distraction. Affirming the importance of the rule in L‟Estrange, it doesn‟t matter what happens – if you have signed it, it is binding. L‟Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 – Divisional Court (Appeal from the County Court) Facts: • L‟Estrange (plaintiff) purchased a vending machine from F Graucob Ltd (defendant). • The plaintiff signed an order form headed „Sales Agreement‟ which contained printed terms of sale and an entire agreement clause: o „The agreement contains all the terms and conditions under which I agree to purchase the machine specified above and any express or implied conditions, statement, or warranty, statutory or otherwise not stated herein is hereby excluded.‟