Gull v Saunders & Stuart - [1913] HCA 55

GULL AND OTHERS

SAUNDERS &STUART

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Sale of goods-Contract- Warranty-Action - for breach-Damages-Finding as to

damages by jury-Admission without objection of irrelevant evidence-Assess- ment of damages on mistaken basis-Remolenese of damage-Reduction by PERTH, Oct. 29, 30

At the trial of an action before a jury evidence for the plaintiffs was admitted without objection by the defendants which they afterwards con- tended to be irrelevant, and counsel in addressing the jury, the presiding Judge in summing up, and the jury in assessing damages, were allowed to

Held, that after the jury had performed their function the Judge was right in refusing to ignore their finding and to review the damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

Semble, that the only remedy (if any) open to the defendants was to apply for a new trial, and that such an application should not be made to, and could not be granted by, the Judge who tried the lease, on a motion for judg. ment on the findings of the jury.

Where an engine which was purchased by the plaintiffs, who had no knowledge of engines, on a warranty given by the defendants of its efficiency for a stated purpose, was, although in fact inefficient for that purpose, con- tinued in use for a considerable period in reliance upon assurances given by or on behalf of the defendants that the engine could and would be made efficient,

17 CLR 83

Heid, that the plaintiffs having, as could properly be found by the jury, acted reasonably and prudently in the circumstances, and the jury having awarded them damages for the loss sustained by them during the period in question, the Judge had erred in eliminating such damages on the ground of

Order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McMillan J.), varied.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court, Arthur Courthope Gull, Wilfred Eckford Gull and Harold Ernest Gull, trading as Gull Brothers, purchased from the defendants, Saunders &Stuart, an engine and pump for the purpose of irrigating their farm lands. The plaintiffs, having no knowledge of engines, left it to the defendants to supply an engine of sufficient power to do the work required, and accepted their assurance that the engine sup- plied was of such power. The engine turned out to be inefficient, but on the assurances of the defendants' experts the plaintiffs continued to use it for a period of three years, and suffered loss to their crops throughout the whole of that period. They there- upon brought an action for damages, which came on for trial before McMillan J. and a jury. The jury found in the plaintiffs' favour, and awarded them £111 as damages in respect of the engine, and £575 as damages for the loss of crops. On the motion for judgment McMillan J. reduced the damages by dis- allowing those for loss of crops as being too remote. Other material facts sufficiently…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gull v Saunders & Stuart

Details

AGLC: Gull v Saunders & Stuart [1913] HCA 55
Case: [1913] HCA 55
Decision Date: 3 November 1913

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning a contract for the sale of an engine and pump. The plaintiffs, Gull Brothers, purchased the equipment from the defendants, Saunders & Stuart, for irrigating their farm. The plaintiffs, lacking expertise in engines, relied on the defendants' assurances that the supplied engine was sufficiently powerful for their needs. However, the engine proved inefficient, leading to crop losses over three years. The plaintiffs sued for damages, and a jury awarded them £111 for the engine and £575 for crop losses. The trial judge, McMillan J., reduced the damages by disallowing the crop loss claim as too remote.

The legal issues before the High Court of Australia were twofold: first, whether the trial judge was correct to reduce the damages awarded by the jury, and second, whether the damages awarded for crop losses were too remote. The defendants also cross-appealed, arguing that the damages for the engine itself were wrongly assessed and should be nominal.

The Court held that the trial judge was correct in refusing to ignore the jury's finding regarding the £111 damages for the engine, even if the evidence used for assessment was admitted without objection and potentially misused. The proper recourse for the defendants, if they believed the damages were wrongly assessed, would have been to seek a new trial, not to have the judge re-assess damages on a motion for judgment. Regarding the crop losses, the Court found that the trial judge erred in disallowing these damages. The Court reasoned that the defendants had specific knowledge of the plaintiffs' irrigation project, the crop type (lucerne), and the required engine power, which was communicated and confirmed by the defendants' representative. Therefore, the loss of crops was a foreseeable consequence of a breach of warranty in these special circumstances. The Court also held that the question of whether the plaintiffs acted reasonably in mitigating their losses by continuing to use the inefficient engine, relying on the defendants' assurances, was a question of fact for the jury.

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, varying the Supreme Court's order. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for the full amount of damages assessed by the jury, £686 (£111 + £575), with costs.

Orders