Bannister v Heyman

The case of *Bannister v Heyman* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of a ship-chandler's stock and the sub-lease of business premises. The plaintiff, the vendor, alleged that the defendant, the purchaser, had breached the contract by refusing to purchase the remaining stock on the agreed date and by refusing to pay rent for the premises.

The High Court was required to determine whether the defendant had breached the contract. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had fulfilled his obligations under the contract, particularly regarding the identification of goods to be sold and the readiness to grant a sub-lease. The court also had to assess whether the defendant's actions constituted a repudiation of the contract that would relieve the plaintiff of his own obligations.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Isaacs, Rich, and Starke JJ., found in favour of the defendant, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court. Isaacs and Rich JJ. held that the plaintiff had not informed the defendant on the specified date what goods he was willing to sell, and that the defendant had not repudiated the contract prior to the performance date. Isaacs J. further found that the plaintiff had not obtained the lessor's consent for the sub-lease, rendering him unable to perform an essential part of the contract. Starke J. concluded that there was no sale or agreement to sell goods, and that the obligation to pay rent was contingent on such a sale.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court be set aside, with the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal.