Heppingstone v Stewart - [1910] HCA 59

Foil

Ltd 119841 2 nswI rmo

[1911.

126 HIGH COURT

[H IG H C O U R T O F

A U S T R A L IA .]

HEPPINGSTONE

A p p e l l a n t ,

P l a i n t i f f ,

STEWART .

R e s p o n d e n t .

D e f e n d a n t ,

ON A P P E A L FR O M T H E S U P R E M E COU RT

W E S T E R N

A U ST R A L IA ,

H . C. OF A.

Contract— Sale oj land—Offer — Statute o f Frauds—Specific performance —

1910. Partnership— A greement— New trial.

The p la in tiff and his b ro ther agreed on 24th N ovem ber 1905 to sell to the defendant all th e ir in te rest in certa in lands known as “ M ount Celia S tation,”

P e r t h ,

October 25, and all the im provem ents and live stock thereon.

The p lain tiff alleged that

26, 31.

he had on 16th N ovem ber 1905 entered into an independent collateral agree

Grilllth C.J.,

Barton and m ent in w riting w ith th e defendant w hereby th e defendant agreed to allow

O’Connor JJ.the p la in tiff to re-purchase his half in te res t on certa in term s and conditions

set ou t in the agreem ent, and th a t th e agreem ent of 24th November was made subject to it. T his docum ent was no t produced by th e plaintiff, but the learned Ju d g e who presided a t the tr ia l and also the learned Judges who constitu ted th e F u ll C ourt w ere of opinion th a t th e defendan t had signed it. The agreem ent of 24th N ovem ber was carried out, and subsequently the p la in tiff b rough t an action for specific perform ance or damages for non perform ance of the alleged agreem ent of 16th N ovem ber.

Held, th a t the agreem ent of 16th N ovem ber was an offer w hich could have been tu rned in to a contract sufficient to satisfy th e Statide o f Frauds betw een th e parties by verbal acceptance before w ithd raw al, and th a t, in the absence of necessary findings of fact by the presid ing Judge , a new trial should be granted.

Decision of the F u ll C ourt of W estern A ustra lia :

Heppingstone v. Steioart,

12 W .A .L .R ., 135, reversed.

12 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

127

A p p e a l from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

H . C. OF…

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 Heppingstone v Stewart

Details

AGLC: Heppingstone v Stewart [1910] HCA 59
Case: [1910] HCA 59
Decision Date: 31 October 1910

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Heppingstone v Stewart*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute arising from an agreement for the sale of land. The appellant, Heppingstone, sought specific performance of the agreement against the respondent, Stewart.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether a sufficient note or memorandum in writing existed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and whether the agreement was rendered unenforceable due to a lack of certainty or a failure to establish a partnership.

The Court found that the correspondence between the parties, when read together, constituted a sufficient note or memorandum in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It was held that the agreement was not void for uncertainty, and that the relationship between the parties was one of vendor and purchaser, not a partnership. The Court therefore allowed the appeal.

Orders