Harvey v Devereux

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania to the High Court of Australia. The dispute arose from a written agreement between Robert Harvey (the plaintiff) and Alexander Percy Devereux (the defendant) concerning the yield of fruit from Devereux's orchards. Devereux had guaranteed that the orchards would yield 6,000 cases of marketable fruit and agreed to pay Harvey 2s. 9d. for each case short of this quantity. The agreement also stipulated that Harvey would keep an accurate account of the fruit, render a "full account" certified by his accountant, and allow Devereux to inspect his books and appoint a tallyman. After the harvest, Harvey provided a certified account, but Devereux refused to pay for the shortfall, leading to an action by Harvey.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of the phrase "full account" as used in the agreement. The Supreme Court of Tasmania had held that this required a detailed breakdown of all fruit varieties and their quantities, leading to a nonsuit against Harvey. Harvey appealed this decision, arguing that a "full account" meant an account sufficient to determine the amount payable under the guarantee, not necessarily a comprehensive list of every fruit type. The High Court was required to determine whether the account provided by Harvey met the contractual obligation of a "full account" and whether the Supreme Court's interpretation was correct.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the term "full account" in the context of the agreement meant an account that fully disclosed the number of cases to be paid for by the defendant in the event of a shortfall. The Court reasoned that the defendant's right to inspect the plaintiff's books and appoint a tallyman provided him with ample opportunity to obtain detailed information. Therefore, the "full account" was intended to be a summary sufficient for the purpose of calculating the payment due under the guarantee, rather than an exhaustive inventory of every variety of fruit. The Court found that the account provided by Harvey, despite a minor omission of plums and quinces which was later resolved, substantially met this requirement.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the nonsuit ordered by the Supreme Court of Tasmania and restored the original verdict in favour of the plaintiff, Robert Harvey. The defendant, Alexander Percy Devereux, was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.