CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE — Reliance on spoken words — Standard of proof
CONTRACTS - Formation - oral contract - intention to create legal relations – promises made – sale of goods - performance of work - nature of friendship - reasonable person
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - Whether claims statute‑barred - Rationales for existence of limitation periods
CONTRACTS — Parties — Privity — Agency – whether husband acted as agent for his wife – whether the wife consented to, and authorised, her husband to act on her behalf in relation to the alleged agreement
COUNSEL:
Mr. R Cameron for the Defendants
SOLICITORS: Mr K Bressington, Solicitor, Bressington & Partners for the
plaintiff
CQ Legal for the defendants
The plaintiff sues the defendants for goods sold namely conveyor belt and work performed being labour supplied for the erection of the conveyor belting around the horse stables and yards at the defendants’ property at 131 Murphy Drive. Glenlee.
The conveyor belt consisted of 330 metre roll and 30 metre at $20 per metre and 50 hours labour at $40 per hour.
The defendants deny the existence of any contract, and in the alternative, say that if there was such an arrangement between them it arose out of their close personal friendship and was made in circumstances in which the Court would not impute to the parties an intention to enter into contractual relations and further the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities[1].
[1] Currie v Dempsey (1967) 69 SR (NSW) 116 at 539. Denning J said in Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 at 374: That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: "We think it more probable than not", the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not. See also Sargent v Massachusetts Accident Co 29 NE (2d) 825 (1940) at 827. See also Smith v Rapid Transit Inc 58 NE (2d) 754 (SJC Mass, 1945); Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 at 642-3; 92 ALR 545 at 548; [1990] HCA 20
The plaintiff called Christopher John GLAZBROOK and Peter Hugh GREEN to give evidence and the defence called both defendants Martin Charles DOYLE and Maryanne Rhyl DOYLE.
[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 Jovelands Pty Ltd v Doyle
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jovelands Pty Ltd v Doyle [2020] QMC 12
Case
[2020] QMC 12
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter between Jovelands Pty Ltd and Doyle came before the court to address claims regarding an alleged oral agreement for the sale of goods and performance of work. Jovelands Pty Ltd sought damages for breach of contract, alleging that Doyle had agreed to purchase goods and provide services under an oral contract. Doyle contended that the claims were statute-barred and, in any event, there was no enforceable contract between the parties. The court had to determine whether the evidence supported the existence of an oral contract, the intention of the parties to create legal relations, and whether the claims were within the limitation period.
The legal issues before the court involved the formation of an oral contract, including the intention of the parties to create legal relations, the nature of the promises made, and the performance of work. The court also needed to consider whether the husband acted as an agent for his wife, whether she consented to, and authorised, her husband to act on her behalf, and whether the claims were statute-barred. The court had to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented by Jovelands Pty Ltd to establish the existence of the oral agreement and the performance of services.
The court found that Jovelands Pty Ltd had failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of the oral contract on the balance of probabilities. The court held that the evidence did not establish that the parties intended to create legal relations, and there was no credible evidence of the promises made or the performance of work. The court also determined that the claims were statute-barred as they were not brought within the relevant limitation period. Consequently, the court dismissed Jovelands Pty Ltd’s claims in their entirety.
The court ordered that Jovelands Pty Ltd pay Doyle’s costs of the proceeding, which were assessed and fixed. The court further ordered that interest be payable on the amount of costs from the date of the judgment until the date of satisfaction. The court made these orders based on the findings that the claims were without merit and statute-barred, and that Jovelands Pty Ltd had failed to establish the necessary elements of their case.