Hunter Douglas v Chadwick - [2001] NSWCA 27

CITATION: Hunter Douglas v Chadwick [2001] NSWCA 27

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40637/99

HEARING DATE(S): 9 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 March 2001

PARTIES :

Hunter Douglas Architectural Products Pty Limited v Chadwick Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Priestley JA at 4; Meagher JA at 5

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 7214/97

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL: Appellant: M. Rudge/N.Manousaridis
Respondent: F. Corsaro

SOLICITORS: Appellant: Baker & McKenzie
Respondent: Burridge & Legg

CATCHWORDS: Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) - fit for purpose - reliance - where goods supplied for use in execution of building contract between purchaser and third party.

LEGISLATION CITED: Sale of Goods Act, 1923 (NSW) s19(1); s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

CASES CITED:
D. Galambos & Son Pty Limited v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10; Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd [1971] 1 QB 88, Milne Construction Ltd v Expandite Ltd [1984] 2 NZLR 163, Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578.

DECISION: 1. Appeal dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis from 29 January 1999; 2. Cross-appeal allowed and the cross-respondent to pay the costs of the cross-appellant.; 3. The matter to be stood over for 28 days to enable the parties to bring in Short Minutes embodying the proposed orders of the Court..

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA: 40637/99

MASON P

PRIESTLEY JA

MEAGHER JA

Thursday, 8 March 2001

HUNTER DOUGLAS ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS PTY LIMITED v CHADWICK INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED

The appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of structural panels used in the building industry to externally clad sub-structures. The respondent contracted with the appellant for the supply of the panels in the construction of buildings to be known as the Brisbane Convention and Entertainment Centre. The appellant provided the respondent with a manual to their product and asserted, inter alia, that the panels were suitable for affixation to a particular structural product manufactured by BHP. On this assertion the respondent relied. The panels were supplied and were found during the course of construction to be incompatible with the BHP product. The respondent then incurred cost increases and production delays in altering the appellant’s product to enable its use in construction. The respondent then failed to make further and final payments to the appellant for the supply of the panels, which payment the appellant sought to recover in proceedings the subject of this appeal. The defendant successfully cross-claimed that the goods were not fit for their intended purpose and that the statements made by the appellant misled the respondent in its choice of product. The appellant appeals. The respondent cross-appeals the addition of interest on the amount outstanding to the appellant and allowed by the trial judge, and claims his Honour incorrectly disallowed their Offer of Compromise on the basis that it was not in the form under Part19A of the District Court Rules.

1. The goods…

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 Hunter Douglas v Chadwick

Details

AGLC: Hunter Douglas v Chadwick [2001] NSWCA 27
Case: [2001] NSWCA 27
Decision Date: 8 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter Douglas Limited (the appellant) and Mr. Chadwick (the respondent) were parties to litigation concerning the supply of goods. The dispute arose from the sale of goods which were intended for use in the execution of a building contract between the purchaser and a third party. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal concerned the application of the *Sale of Goods Act 1923* (NSW), specifically the provisions relating to goods being fit for purpose and the element of reliance by the purchaser. The court was required to determine whether the goods supplied met the required standard of fitness for the particular purpose for which they were intended, and whether the purchaser had relied on the seller's skill or judgment in selecting or supplying those goods.

The court's reasoning and the legal principles applied would have involved an analysis of the contractual relationship between Hunter Douglas and Mr. Chadwick, the specific terms of their agreement, and the circumstances surrounding the supply of the goods. This would have included an examination of whether the purpose for which the goods were required was made known to the seller, and whether the seller's supply of the goods was in reliance on that knowledge. The court would have considered the extent to which the goods failed to meet the intended purpose and whether this failure was attributable to a breach of the statutory implied conditions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis from 29 January 1999. The cross-appeal was allowed, and the cross-respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appellant. The matter was then stood over for 28 days to allow the parties to submit Short Minutes embodying the proposed orders of the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis from 29 January 1999; 2. Cross-appeal allowed and the cross-respondent to pay the costs of the cross-appellant.; 3. The matter to be stood over for 28 days to enable the parties to bring in Short Minutes embodying the proposed orders of the Court..

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Hunter Douglas v Chadwick [2001] NSWCA 27
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40637/99
HEARING DATE(S):	9 February 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	8 March 2001
PARTIES :	Hunter Douglas Architectural Products Pty Limited v Chadwick Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Priestley JA at 4; Meagher JA at 5

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	7214/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant: M. Rudge/N.Manousaridis Respondent: F. Corsaro
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: Baker & McKenzie Respondent: Burridge & Legg
CATCHWORDS:	Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) - fit for purpose - reliance - where goods supplied for use in execution of building contract between purchaser and third party.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Sale of Goods Act, 1923 (NSW) s19(1); s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
CASES CITED:	D. Galambos & Son Pty Limited v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10; Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd [1971] 1 QB 88, Milne Construction Ltd v Expandite Ltd [1984] 2 NZLR 163, Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578.
DECISION:	1. Appeal dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis from 29 January 1999; 2. Cross-appeal allowed and the cross-respondent to pay the costs of the cross-appellant.; 3. The matter to be stood over for 28 days to enable the parties to bring in Short Minutes embodying the proposed orders of the Court..