SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Groves & Anor v BMW Finance Ltd [2001] QCA 16 PARTIES: EDMUND STUART GROVES and LE NEVE ANN
GROVES
(plaintiffs/respondents)
v
BMW AUSTRALIA FINANCE LIMITED
ACN 007 101 715
(first defendant/appellant)
RIVERSIDE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 010 662 334
(second defendant)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 3316 of 2000
DC No 1789 of 1994DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 9 February 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 3 November 2000 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies and Pincus JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court
each concurring as to the order madeORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed CATCHWORDS: GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY – LEASES – appeal against the finding of uncertainty in the construction of a lease agreement – whether possible to determine the respondents' liability – whether a contract exists - whether the appellant took possession of the vehicles – whether to give effect to the commercial bargain struck between the parties as recorded in the contract – whether contract is illusionary or uncertain – whether money owing under the contract District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 253
Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988-1989) 15
NSWLR 130, 135, mentioned
Brogden v Metropolitan Railways Company (1877) 2 App
Cas 666, mentioned
Clift v Timms Appeal No 1095 of 1996, 25 March 1997,
mentioned
Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Gray [1992] 1 VR 540, mentioned
Empirnall Holdings v Machon Paull (1988) 14 NSWLR 523,
mentioned
Hillas (W.N.) and Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] All ER 494;
(1932) Comm Cas 23, 29, mentioned.
Kendle v Melsom (1998) 72 ALJR 560, 572, mentioned
Meehan v Jones (1981-1982) 149 CLR 571, 578, mentioned
Mercantile Credits Ltd v Comblas (1982) 56 ALJR 499, 501,
mentioned
Scammell (G.) & Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251,
mentioned
Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422, 429-430, mentioned
Upper Hunter Country District Council v Australian Chilling
& Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429, 437, mentioned
York Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (A/sia) Pty Ltd v
Commonwealth (1949) 80 CLR 11,26 mentionedCOUNSEL: P W Hackett for the appellant
J A Griffin QC, with T C Somers, for the respondentsSOLICITORS: Bain Gasteen for the appellant
Wyman & Co for the respondents
McMURDO P: In 1992, the respondents leased a BWM 525(i) sedan and a BMW 325(i) convertible from the appellant under separate lease agreements. The respondents had previously leased motor vehicles from the appellant but this was the first occasion they had entered into this style of lease which was attractive to them because there was no residual payment required at the expiration of the leases. Under the lease agreements, if the vehicles were driven beyond 50,000 kilometres during the four year term of the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Groves v BMW Finance Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2001] QCA 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Groves v BMW Finance Ltd, the appellant sought to enforce a lease agreement with the respondent. The dispute centred on the enforceability of the lease agreement between the parties, with the appellant claiming the respondent's liability under the agreement, while the respondent argued that the agreement was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the agreement was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract and, if so, what the respondent's obligations were under the agreement.
The court considered whether the agreement between the parties was sufficiently certain and specific to create a binding contract. The appellant argued that the agreement was clear and that the respondent was liable under the terms of the lease. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable, and that there was no binding contract between the parties. The court had to determine whether the agreement was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract and, if so, what the respondent's obligations were under the agreement.
The court found that the agreement between the parties was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract. The court held that the agreement was not vague or uncertain and that the respondent was liable under the terms of the lease. The court held that the agreement was a genuine attempt by the parties to create a binding contract and that the terms of the agreement were sufficiently certain to be enforced. The court also found that the appellant had taken possession of the vehicles and that the respondent was liable for the amount owing under the contract. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal. The court found that the agreement between the parties was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract and that the respondent was liable under the terms of the lease. The court held that the agreement was not vague or uncertain and that the respondent was liable for the amount owing under the contract. The court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
The court considered whether the agreement between the parties was sufficiently certain and specific to create a binding contract. The appellant argued that the agreement was clear and that the respondent was liable under the terms of the lease. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable, and that there was no binding contract between the parties. The court had to determine whether the agreement was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract and, if so, what the respondent's obligations were under the agreement.
The court found that the agreement between the parties was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract. The court held that the agreement was not vague or uncertain and that the respondent was liable under the terms of the lease. The court held that the agreement was a genuine attempt by the parties to create a binding contract and that the terms of the agreement were sufficiently certain to be enforced. The court also found that the appellant had taken possession of the vehicles and that the respondent was liable for the amount owing under the contract. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal. The court found that the agreement between the parties was sufficiently certain to create a binding contract and that the respondent was liable under the terms of the lease. The court held that the agreement was not vague or uncertain and that the respondent was liable for the amount owing under the contract. The court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
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.