CITATION: GILLOGLY v. IAMA AGRIBUSINESS PTY. LIMITED [2002] NSWCA 251 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40397/01 HEARING DATE(S): 11 December 2001 JUDGMENT DATE:
15 August 2002PARTIES :
Allan Gillogly (Appellant)
IAMA Agribusiness Pty. Limited (Respondent)JUDGMENT OF: Powell JA at 1; Beazley JA at 71; Grove J at 116
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :DC 15/99 (Moree) LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Knight DCJ
COUNSEL: J.S. van Aalst (Appellant)
D.J. Russell (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Abbott Pardy & Jenkins (Glen Innes) (Appellant)
Webb & Boland (Moree) (Respondent)CATCHWORDS: SALE OF GOODS - Contract for sale of quantity of grain - Contemplated that grain acquired by vendor would be delivered into third party storage depot - Storage agreement provided that grain for storage might be commingled with other grain of same type and grade - Vendor not entitled to receive back grain delivered into storage but entitled to receive or to transfer grain of same type and grade - Purchaser to be entitled to call for delivery of grain by instalments as and when required - Whether property in grain acquired by vendor passed to third party or to purchaser - SALE OF GOODS - Contract for sale of quantity of grain - Purchaser to be entitled to delivery of grain by instalments as and when required - After about forty per cent of grain had been delivered several quantities of contaminated grain were delivered - Whether purchaser could terminate contract for breach D LEGISLATION CITED: Sale of Goods Act 1923 CASES CITED: Chapman Bros v. Virco Bros and Company Limited (1933) 49 CLR 306
Farnsworth v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 504
Freeth v. Burr (1874) LR 9 CP 208
George Wills & Co Limited v. Davids Pty. Limited (1957) 98 CLR 77
Maple Flock Company Limited v. Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Limited [1934] 1 KB 148
The Mersey Steel and Iron Co (Limited) v. Naylor, Benzon & Co (1884) LR 9 App Cas 434
The South Australian Insurance Company v. Randell (1869) LR 3 PC 101DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CA 40397/01
DC 15/9915 August 2002POWELL JA
BEAZLEY JA
GROVE J
GILLOGLY v. IAMA AGRIBUSINESS PTY. LIMITED
Judgment
1 POWELL JA: This is an appeal by an unsuccessful defendant against a Judgment delivered, and verdict found, by Knight DCJ on 11 May 2001 in the District Court.
2 In the proceedings, the Respondent, which at all material times carried on a business of (inter alia) dealing in grains, including barley, sought to recover from the Appellant, a farmer who, at all material times, operated a feed lot on which cattle were fattened for sale, moneys which it claimed to be owing to it pursuant to an agreement for the sale by it to the Appellant of barley.
3 When delivered, and before it was fed to cattle on the feed lot, the barley was cracked by running it through a roller mill, the purpose of that being done being to enable…
Details
- AGLC
- Gillogly v Iama Agribusiness Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 251
- Case
- [2002] NSWCA 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Gillogly (the purchaser) appealed from a decision of the primary judge concerning a contract for the sale of a quantity of grain to Iama Agribusiness Pty. Limited (the vendor). The dispute arose from the vendor's delivery of contaminated grain after approximately forty per cent of the contracted quantity had been delivered. The contract contemplated that the grain acquired by the vendor would be delivered into a third-party storage depot, where it might be commingled with other grain of the same type and grade. Under the storage agreement, the vendor was not entitled to receive back the specific grain delivered but was entitled to receive or transfer grain of the same type and grade. The purchaser was to be entitled to call for delivery of the grain by instalments as and when required.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the property in the grain acquired by the vendor had passed to the purchaser, and whether the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract for breach due to the delivery of contaminated grain.
The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the contract was one for the sale of unascertained goods. The property in the grain did not pass to the purchaser at the time of the contract, nor did it pass upon the vendor's acquisition of the grain. Instead, property passed when specific goods, identified and appropriated to the contract, were delivered to the purchaser or placed at their disposal in accordance with the contract. The court found that the vendor's delivery of contaminated grain constituted a breach of contract. However, the court held that the purchaser was not entitled to terminate the contract for this breach. The reasoning for this conclusion, though not fully elaborated in the provided text, likely involved an assessment of whether the breach was sufficiently fundamental to justify termination, or whether the purchaser's remedy lay in damages for the defective goods.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the property in the grain acquired by the vendor had passed to the purchaser, and whether the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract for breach due to the delivery of contaminated grain.
The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the contract was one for the sale of unascertained goods. The property in the grain did not pass to the purchaser at the time of the contract, nor did it pass upon the vendor's acquisition of the grain. Instead, property passed when specific goods, identified and appropriated to the contract, were delivered to the purchaser or placed at their disposal in accordance with the contract. The court found that the vendor's delivery of contaminated grain constituted a breach of contract. However, the court held that the purchaser was not entitled to terminate the contract for this breach. The reasoning for this conclusion, though not fully elaborated in the provided text, likely involved an assessment of whether the breach was sufficiently fundamental to justify termination, or whether the purchaser's remedy lay in damages for the defective goods.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.