Petersen v Moloney

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning a dispute over the payment of purchase money for a house and its contents. The appellant, the vendor, had sold her property to the respondent, Moloney, through an estate agent, Pulbrook. Moloney claimed to have paid the full purchase price to Pulbrook, who subsequently failed to remit the money to the appellant. The appellant sued Moloney for the purchase price and, in the alternative, sued Pulbrook for money had and received.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the estate agent, Pulbrook, had the authority to receive the purchase money on behalf of the vendor, whether the vendor had ratified Pulbrook's receipt of the money, and whether the vendor's prior judgment against Pulbrook constituted an election that precluded her from pursuing an appeal against Moloney. The court was required to determine if the evidence supported Moloney's defence of payment to an authorised agent.

The High Court found that there was no evidence to support a finding that Pulbrook had express or implied authority to receive the purchase money on behalf of the vendor. The court also held that the vendor had not ratified Pulbrook's actions, as the alleged knowledge of the payment and subsequent conduct were not sufficiently unequivocal to establish ratification. Furthermore, the acknowledgment of payment in the transfer document did not create an estoppel against the vendor. The court determined that the judgment obtained against Pulbrook in the court below did not amount to a final election precluding the appeal against Moloney, as the appeal sought to substitute judgment against Moloney for that against Pulbrook.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court. It ordered that the appellant recover the sum of £700 from the respondent Moloney, and that the appellant recover nothing from the respondent Pulbrook. The respondent Moloney was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the action, with no order as to the costs of the respondent Pulbrook.