Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd v Carter

This case involved an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a contract for the sale of sheep between Goldsbrough, Mort & Co Ltd (the appellants) and Alexander Hunter Carter (the respondent). The dispute arose when the number of sheep delivered was significantly less than the estimated quantities specified in the written contract. The respondent sued for damages, alleging breach of contract and breach of warranty.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the contract was for the sale of specific sheep or a quantity of unspecified sheep, and whether the descriptive numbers in the contract constituted a warranty that such numbers were in existence at the time of the contract or would be available for delivery. The court also had to consider the effect of the severe drought and subsequent rains on the sheep's survival and the parties' obligations under the contract.

The majority of the High Court, comprising Griffith C.J. and Barton J., held that the contract was for the sale of specific sheep, being those depasturing on Canonbar Station at the time of the contract, and not a contract for a specified quantity of sheep. They reasoned that the words "more or less" and "about" in relation to the numbers of sheep indicated estimates rather than warranties, particularly given the circumstances of the sale, the nature of the property, and the price being per head. The court applied the principles that in a contract for the sale of specific goods, the goods must exist at the time of the contract and continue to exist until the time of performance, unless otherwise agreed. They found that the significant reduction in numbers was due to natural causes (death from drought and subsequent rains) without fault of the seller, and that the contract only applied to such sheep as were in existence at the time of the contract. Consequently, the appellants were not liable for the non-delivery of sheep that had perished.

The High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court. The final orders were that the appeal be allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court be set aside, with judgment entered for the defendants (appellants) on all counts.