Hugall v Raine

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of eighteen tons of flour, where the buyer sought to rely on a verbal warranty of "first class quality" made by the seller's agent, despite a written sale note that purportedly contained all the terms of the agreement. The buyer claimed the flour was of inferior quality and would not produce bread suitable for sale by a reputable baker.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the verbal warranty could be added to the written contract and whether the provisions of section 17 of the *Sale of Goods Act 1896* (Qd.) provided a defence to the seller's claim for the balance of the purchase money. The District Court Judge had found that a verbal warranty of first-class quality was given, that the flour was not of that quality, and that section 17 of the Act did not apply. The Supreme Court of Queensland, however, held that the contract was reduced to writing in the sale note and that the verbal warranty could not be added.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal. Griffith C.J. stated that no general question of law was involved, and the case turned on the specific documents and facts of the dispute. Furthermore, the amount in dispute was below the threshold for appeals as of right. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.