Legal Research
Cases
Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd

Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 17 October 1968 22 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

REG. GLASS PTY. LTD. v. RIVERS LOCKING SYSTEMS PTY. LTD.

(1968) 120 CLR 516

17 October 1968

Contract

Contract—Implied term—Breach—Damages—Work done and materials supplied—Installation of burglar-proof door—Door installed not in breach of specifications in express contract—Door not reasonable protection against breaking and entering—Reliance on contractor's skill and knowledge—Whether warranty of fitness for intended purpose implied—Goods stolen—Measure of damages.

Decisions

October 17.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J., McTIERNAN AND MENZIES JJ. An action by the appellant against the respondent, heard by Macfarlan J., resulted in judgment for the plaintiff for $10,365.53, and in judgment for the defendant for $213 upon a cross action. An appeal by the defendant to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was allowed (1968) 2 NSWR 187 ; the judgment in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the defendant obtained judgment in its cross action for $180 instead of $213 in correction of an error in calculation. This is an appeal by the plaintiff seeking the restoration of its judgment for $10,365.53. (at p518)

2. The plaintiff, a retailer of men's wear, opened a new branch of its business in a shop at 401 New South Head Road, Double Bay. The shop was in a new block of shops and offices fronting New South Head Road and backing on to Kiaora Lane. In order to obtain insurance upon its stock the plaintiff found it necessary to install burglar-proof devices including what can loosely be described as a burglar-proof door at the back of the shop where it opened upon a passageway leading through a gateway to Kiaora Lane. The plaintiff accepted the defendant's quotation as follows:

"RIVERS LOCKING SYSTEMS PTY. LTD. Engineers Protecting Against Burglary Lockmakers and Manufacturers of Rivers Non Break-Out-Devices. 14 Carby Avenue, Concord, N.S.W. 26th January, 1966.

Mr. R. Glass, Reg. Glass Pty. Ltd., 25 Victory Street, ROSE BAY. Dear Sir: Re - SHOP 2. 401 NEW SOUTH HEAD RD. DOUBLE BAY. We have pleasure in submitting quotation to supply Rivers

security at the above premises as follows: FRONT SLIDING DOOR: Supply and fit

Rivers 2 Point Non-break-out Locking System, operated by key from outside. 43 pounds 0. 0. ($86.00)

REAR SINGLE DOOR: Supply, fit and hang core door to suit opening, steel sheet outside area, fit Rivers 4 Point Non-break-out Locking System, operated by key from inside, hinge stops etc. Transfer latch from existing door to this door. 63 pounds 10. 0. ($127.00) KEYS: Both locks may be built to one combination or separately as desired, number of keys required supplied. Thanking you for this opportunity to quote and assuring you of our best service at all times. We are, Yours faithfully, RIVERS LOCKING SYSTEMS PTY. LTD. (Sgd.) R. RIVERS Managing Director." (at p518)

3. It was with the item styled "rear single door" referred to in this quotation that the litigation, of which this appeal is part, has been…

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 Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems 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

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: [1968] HCA 64
Decision Date: 17 October 1968

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reg Glass Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (the defendant) in the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for breach of contract and negligence arising from the defendant's supply and installation of a locking system for the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff alleged that the locking system was defective and failed to provide the security it was represented to offer, leading to a loss of goods.

The High Court was required to determine whether the defendant had breached its contractual obligations to supply a locking system fit for its intended purpose and whether the defendant had been negligent in its design, manufacture, or installation of the system. Central to the determination was the extent of the defendant's liability for the loss suffered by the plaintiff, particularly in light of any disclaimers or limitations of liability that may have been incorporated into the contract.

The Court considered the terms of the contract between the parties, including any express or implied warranties. It examined the evidence presented regarding the performance of the locking system and the circumstances of the loss. The judges applied principles of contract law concerning the implied condition of fitness for purpose and the tort of negligence, including the duty of care owed by a supplier and installer of security systems. The Court assessed whether the defendant had met the standard of care expected of a reasonable tradesperson in the industry and whether any alleged breaches caused the plaintiff's loss.

The High Court found in favour of the plaintiff, holding the defendant liable for breach of contract and negligence. The Court ordered that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff to compensate for the loss suffered.

Orders