Ockerby and Company Limited v Murdock

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court, brought by Ockerby and Company Limited against James Francis Murdock. The dispute arose from a contract entered into in August 1914, whereby Murdock, a farmer, agreed to sell 250 bags of wheat to Ockerby and Company for delivery in January and February 1915. Ockerby and Company sued Murdock for damages for breach of contract due to non-delivery. Murdock's defence was that the contract was for the sale of wheat from his own crop, and that the Grain and Foodstuff Board had subsequently acquired all his wheat, rendering performance impossible.

The legal issues before the courts were whether the contract was for the sale of the defendant's own crop, and if so, whether the subsequent acquisition of all the defendant's wheat by the Grain and Foodstuff Board under the *Grain and Foodstuff Act 1914* (W.A.) and the *Industries Assistance Act 1915* (W.A.) excused the defendant from his contractual obligation to deliver. Specifically, the court had to consider the effect of section 23(1) of the *Industries Assistance Act 1915*, which deemed contracts for the sale of wheat for future delivery, entered into before its commencement, to be for the sale of the farmer's own wheat unless a contrary intention was proven. The court also considered section 19 of the *Grain and Foodstuff Act 1914*, which provided that the acquisition of grain by the Board discharged any obligation to deliver under a contract.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, by a majority, held that section 23(1) of the *Industries Assistance Act 1915* applied, deeming the contract to be for the sale of the defendant's own crop. Furthermore, the court found that the acquisition of all the defendant's wheat by the Grain and Foodstuff Board in February 1915, pursuant to the powers granted by the *Grain and Foodstuff Act 1914*, rendered the contract impossible of performance and therefore discharged the defendant's obligation to deliver. The High Court subsequently refused special leave to appeal from this decision.