McLaughlin v De Lauret

McLaughlin (the plaintiff) sued De Lauret (the defendant) for breach of contract. The dispute concerned the sale of shares by the defendant, acting as a broker for the plaintiff, under a "time bargain". The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to deliver the shares as agreed.

The central legal issue before the Full High Court was whether the plaintiff had made a sufficient demand for delivery of the shares and given adequate notice of their readiness to pay, thereby putting the defendant in breach of contract. The court had to determine the requirements for performance of a time bargain contract for the sale of shares, particularly concerning the necessity of a formal demand and tender.

The Court considered the nature of a time bargain and the obligations of a broker. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. held that where a contract for the sale of shares specifies a time for completion, neither party is bound to make a formal demand or tender unless the other party has indicated an intention not to perform. However, O'Connor and Isaacs JJ. took a different view, finding that a demand and tender were necessary to establish a breach. Despite this divergence in reasoning regarding the precise trigger for breach, the majority ultimately found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of their preparedness to take delivery and pay for the shares, thereby establishing the defendant's default.

The appeal was allowed.