Butler v Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ.

BUTLER v. EGG AND EGG PULP MARKETING BOARD

(1966) 114 CLR 185

2 June 1966

Conversion

Conversion—Damages—Measure—Goods by statute vested on production in marketing board—Right of producer to payment from pool—Sale by producer to third party—Action by marketing board.

Decisions

June 2.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
TAYLOR AND OWEN JJ. The respondent Board brought an action against the appellants claiming damages for the conversion of a quantity of eggs, the property of the Board. The appellants were the "producers" of the eggs and the eggs were a "commodity" within the meaning of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1958 (Vict.) and, by that Act and proclamations issued under it, the property in the eggs, when they came into existence, was divested from the appellants and vested in and became the absolute property of the Board. The rights and interests of the appellants in the eggs thereupon were converted into claims for payment in accordance with the Act. A Marketing Board set up under the Act is required to sell the commodity in relation to which it is constituted and which is vested in it and the producer of such a commodity is directed, with some exceptions not material in the present case, to deliver the commodity produced by him to the Board and forbidden to sell or deliver it to anyone other than the Board. The Board is required, subject to the provisions of the Act, to pay to each producer of the commodity delivered to and sold by it his proportion of the net proceeds of the sale of all the commodity of the same quality or standard delivered to it during such periods of time as are prescribed and is authorized to deduct from the proceeds of its sales expenditure incurred by it in the course of its administration. The foregoing provisions are to be found in Div. 1 of Pt. 1 of the Act, a division which relates to Marketing Boards generally. Division 2 of Pt. 1 relates specifically to the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board and there is some overlapping of its provisions with those contained in Div. 1 but for the present purposes it is unnecessary to set these out. (at p189)

2. The facts are that the appellants did not deliver the eggs in question to the Board. Instead they sold and delivered them to a person other than the Board and this was the act of conversion which gave rise to the action. In these circumstances the question arose as to the manner in which the damages should be assessed and this came before Little J. in the Supreme Court by way of special case. The Board's contention was that it was entitled to the full value of the eggs converted. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that the Board's loss was represented by the difference between the price for which it would have sold the eggs had they…