House v Whitelock

The case of *House v Whitelock* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from an order placed by the defendant, Mr. Whitelock, for a machine from the plaintiff, Mr. House, a merchant trading as Herman House & Co. The plaintiff sought to recover the price of the machine after the defendant refused to accept delivery.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was bound by a cancellation clause agreed to by his agent, Bell, and whether the defendant could validly cancel the order despite the plaintiff's subsequent ratification of the contract. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of Bell's authority and the effect of the printed conditions on the order form, which stated that only printed or written conditions on the form were binding.

The Supreme Court of Victoria had found in favour of the defendant, holding that he was entitled to cancel the order based on an agreement with Bell, which allowed cancellation if the defendant did not have a satisfactory crop. The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, implicitly accepted this reasoning. The printed conditions on the order form, which sought to limit the agent's authority, were evidently not considered by the Supreme Court to override the specific, contemporaneous agreement for cancellation made by the agent, which the defendant relied upon.

Special leave to appeal was refused by the High Court.