Redfern v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd - [1964] HCA 9

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

REDFERN v. DUNLOP RUBBER AUSTRALIA LTD.

(1964) 110 CLR 194

25 February 1964

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Trade and commerce among the States—Statute prohibiting contract or combination in relation to trade and commerce among States in restraint of or with intention to restrain such trade or commerce—Right of action by person injured by act in contravention of prohibition—Right to recover treble damages—Validity—Demurrer—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (i.)—Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 (Cth), ss. 4 (1) (2)*, 11**.

Decisions

1964, February 25.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
DIXON C.J. This action is brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court by a number of plaintiffs against a number of defendants claiming treble damages in pursuance of s. 11 (1) of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 (Cth). It is alleged in the statement of claim (par. 22) that the Attorney-General has pursuant to s. 14 of the Act given written consent to the institution of these proceedings. His consent is a statutory condition precedent. In fact the action combines the entirely independent claims of three plaintiffs against five independent defendants. That appears to have been allowed to pass, presumably on the assumption that it is a form of procedure authorized by some of the rules contained in O. 19 in combination with O. 16, r. 1 and r. 8. Unfortunately, the substantial questions which were probably intended to be raised are brought before the Court by a demurrer to the statement of claim, that is to say in pursuance of O. 26. (at p206)

2. It is convenient to state who are the plaintiffs by reference to the name of their firm or company and not as individuals. First, there is Highway Tyre Service of Dandenong; second, Pakenham Tyre Service of Pakenham; third, H.J. King Tyre Service of Melbourne which is a business of an incorporated company, H.J. King Enterprises Pty. Ltd., incorporated in Victoria. These three bodies were, according to allegations in the statement of claim, all engaged at the material times in carrying on the business of buying, selling and dealing in motor and cycle tyres and tubes. Each is alleged to have been "a trader", an expression adopted by the statement of claim as a description of those entering into a certain agreement governing the terms of retailing tyres. (at p206)

3. The defendants consist of five companies: first, Dunlop Rubber Australia Limited which manufactured tyres etc. at factories in New South Wales and in Victoria and sold them in those States for delivery across State borders and delivered them across State borders into warehouses for subsequent sale or delivery therefrom; second, B.F. Goodrich Australia Pty. Limited which manufactured tyres etc. at a factory or factories in the State of Victoria and sold them in the State of Victoria, sometimes for delivery across State borders from its factory or warehouses as the case may be, at…

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 Redfern v Dunlop Rubber Australia 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

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: [1964] HCA 9
Decision Date: 25 February 1964

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Redfern against Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd concerning a dispute over the construction of a contract for the sale of goods. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the contract, which involved the sale of rubber, incorporated certain terms relating to quality and fitness for purpose that were not explicitly set out in the written agreement. Redfern contended that these implied terms should be read into the contract, while Dunlop Rubber argued that the written contract was exhaustive and excluded any such implied warranties.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) impliedly imposed terms as to quality and fitness for purpose into the contract, notwithstanding the existence of a written agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine if the circumstances of the sale, including the nature of the goods and the relationship between the parties, were such that the statutory implied terms could be excluded or overridden by the written contract. This involved an examination of the principles governing the implication of terms into contracts, particularly in the context of the Sale of Goods Act.

The High Court, in its judgment, analysed the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and relevant common law principles. The court held that the Act did not automatically imply terms of quality or fitness for purpose in every contract for the sale of goods. Instead, the implication of such terms depended on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and crucially, whether the written contract clearly and unambiguously excluded them. The court found that the written contract in this instance was sufficiently comprehensive to exclude the statutory implied terms, meaning Dunlop Rubber was not bound by warranties of quality or fitness that were not expressly stated.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed Redfern's appeal, finding in favour of Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd. The court's decision affirmed that parties to a contract for the sale of goods are generally bound by the terms they have expressly agreed upon, and that statutory implied terms will not be read into a contract where the written agreement clearly indicates an intention to exclude them.

Orders