R S Howard & Sons Ltd v Brunton - [1916] HCA 21

R. S. HOWARD &SONS LIMITED.

BRUNTON AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Contract-Validity-Contract declared by Statute to be void-Contract rescinded

before passing of Act-Contract for rescission-Retrospective legislation-Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.) (No. 27 of 1914), sec. 8. SYDNEY, April 3, 4.

Practice-Supreme Court of New South Vales-Costs-Issues-Verdict-Judgment

non obstante veredicto-Common Law Procedure Act 1899 (N.S.W.) (No. 21 of 1899), sec. 164.

Sec. 8 of the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.) provides that " (1) Every contract made in the State of New South Wales prior to the passing of this Act, so far as it relates to the sale of New South Wales 1914-15 wheat to be

21 CLR 367

delivered in the said State, is hereby declared to be and to have been void and of no effect SO far as such contract has not been completed by delivery. (2) Any transaction or contract with respect to any wheat which is the subject matter of any contract or part of a contract which is hereby declared to be void shall also be void and of no effect, and any money paid in respect of any con- tract hereby made void or of any such transaction shall be repaid."

Held, that the section only applies to contracts which at the date of the passing of the Act were existing and unperformed.

Therefore, where before the passing of the Act a contract had been made whereby the plaintiffs agreed to cancel a prior contract for the purchase by them from the defendants of a certain quantity of 1914-15 wheat to be delivered in New South Wales and the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiffs by way of compensation a certain sum per bushel of the wheat agreed to be purchased,

Held, that sec. 8 was not an answer to an action by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendants the amount of such compensation.

In such an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales the plaintiffs in their declaration set out the contract sued upon omitting those parts which would only be material if sec. 8 applied to it. The only plea of the defendants set out the facts which would bring the contract within sec. 8 if it applied to such a contract. Those facts were not contested. The plaintiffs did not demur but joined issue on the defendants' plea, and the case was sent down for trial by a jury. The trial Judge was asked to enter a verdict for the defendants, and he did so, reserving leave to the plaintiffs to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiffs. On the hearing of the motion the Full Court, holding that sec. 8 did not apply to the contract, ordered judgment to be entered for the plain- tiffs and that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the trial.

Held, that the proper order was that judgment should be entered for the…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R S Howard & Sons Ltd v Brunton 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1916] HCA 21
Decision Date: 4 April 1916

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R. S. Howard & Sons Ltd v Brunton involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the validity of a contract entered into on 3 November 1914, which rescinded a prior contract dated 29 July 1914 for the sale of wheat. The plaintiffs, Brunton & Co., sought to recover compensation from the defendants, R. S. Howard & Sons Ltd, under the terms of the rescission agreement. The defendants argued that the rescission agreement was void due to the retrospective operation of section 8 of the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.), which declared certain contracts for the sale of New South Wales wheat to be void.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 8 of the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 applied to contracts that had already been rescinded or otherwise completed before the Act's passing on 11 December 1914. The defendants contended that the Act rendered the original contract of sale void, thereby invalidating the subsequent rescission agreement for lack of consideration. The plaintiffs, conversely, argued that the Act only applied to existing, unperformed contracts at the time of its commencement. A secondary issue concerned the appropriate orders for costs, particularly in light of the procedural history in the Supreme Court where a verdict had been entered for the defendants, with leave reserved for the plaintiffs to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that section 8 of the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 was not retrospective in its operation beyond existing, unperformed contracts. The Court reasoned that the language of the section, particularly the phrase "so far as such contract has not been completed by delivery," indicated an intention to affect only executory contracts. Therefore, the rescission agreement of 3 November 1914, which cancelled a prior contract that was no longer in existence at the time the Act was passed, was valid and enforceable. The Court varied the order of the Supreme Court to ensure judgment was entered for the plaintiffs notwithstanding the verdict, in accordance with section 164 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1899 (N.S.W.), and adjusted the costs order accordingly.

Orders