SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
| CITATION: | Metal Roofing and Cladding P/L v Amcor Trading P/L [1999] QCA 472 |
| PARTIES: | METAL ROOFING AND CLADDING PTY LTD ACN 010 035 266 (Defendant/Appellant) and AMCOR TRADING PTY LTD ACN 006 409 936 (Plaintiff/Respondent) |
| FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 3180 of 1999 SC No 6133 of 1996 |
| DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
| PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
| ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
| DELIVERED ON: | 12 November 1999 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| HEARING DATE: | 23 September 1999 |
| JUDGES: | McPherson JA (dissenting), Thomas JA, Cullinane J |
| ORDER: | Appeal dismissed with costs. |
| CATCHWORDS: | CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – Construction and Interpretation of contracts – Discharge, Breach and Defences to action for breach – Sale by description – Breach of condition – Express or implied conditions – Measure of damages – Proof of loss – Right to damages for non-acceptance or rejection of goods – Exemption clauses – Counterclaims. |
| Sale of Goods Act 1896 s 14(3), s 16, s 29, s 42(3), s 54(1)(b), s 54(3) | |
| Arocs Ltd v E A Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470 Andrews Brothers (Bournemouth) Limited v Singer & Co. Ltd. [1934] 1 KB 17 Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441 Bostock & Co v Nicholson & Sons Ltd [1904] 1 KB 725 L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 Marimpex Mineralöl v Louis Dreyfus et Cie Mineralöl [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 167. Nelson v Dahl (1879) 12 Ch D 568 Nichol v Godts (1854) 10 Ex 190; 156 ER 410 Nissho Iwai Australia Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corporation Berhad (1989) 167 CLR 219 Pinnock Brothers v Lewis & Peat Ltd [1923] 1 KB 690 Sopers v Johnston [1994] 2 All ER 586 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 Thompson v London; Midland & Scottish Ry Co [1930] 1 KB 412 Wallis Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes [1911] AC 394 | |
| COUNSEL: | Mr P Keane QC, with him Mr D Campbell, for the appellant Mr D Savage for the respondent |
| SOLICITORS: | Hemming & Hart for the appellant Macphersons & Kelley for the respondent |
McPHERSON JA: Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipes are manufactured and widely used in Australia for the purpose of reticulating or transmitting water and other liquids. Such pipes are commonly made from PVC resin by suspension polymerisation, which is a chemical process that involves dispersing the resin in water, heating it with additives that combine with the PVC homopolymer in the resin, and then passing it through an extruder to make the pipes. The resin is a powdery substance which is supplied to the manufacturer in containers or bags. It is a derivative of petroleum and a by-product of that industry, which is produced locally in Australia; but quantities of PVC resin are also imported from Europe and Asia.
Amcor, which is the plaintiff in the action and the respondent to this appeal, is an entity that sells PVC resin which it imports from overseas. Pipemakers, which is a division of the appellant defendant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Metal Roofing and Cladding Pty Ltd v Amcor Trading Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] QCA 472
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation of the contract's terms, the breach of an express condition regarding the supply of materials, and the applicability of an exemption clause that limited Amcor's liability. MRC argued that the materials supplied were not fit for purpose, which constituted a breach of contract. Amcor contended that the exemption clause in the contract absolved it from liability for any defects in the supplied materials.
The court began by examining the contract's terms and the nature of the breach. It held that the condition relating to the supply of materials was indeed breached, as the materials did not meet the specified description. The court then considered the exemption clause, determining that it did not cover the breach in question. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that Amcor was liable for the breach. The court also noted that MRC was entitled to damages for the non-acceptance of the goods due to the breach.
In addition to dismissing the appeal, the court ordered Amcor to pay MRC's costs. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of contractual clarity and the need for parties to adhere strictly to the terms agreed upon, especially when it comes to express conditions in a contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.