Rolfe v Katunga Lucerne Mill Pty Ltd

This case concerned an appeal from a decision concerning the sale of contaminated chaff. The appellant, Mr Mark Rolfe, a harness horse trainer, purchased chaff from Robank, a farm produce merchant, which had sourced the chaff from the respondent, Katunga Lucerne Mill Pty Ltd. Mr Rolfe's horses became poisoned by botulism toxin present in the chaff, leading to a contractual claim for breach of an implied warranty of merchantable quality under s 19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the chaff supplied was of merchantable quality, and if not, whether the contamination and subsequent poisoning of Mr Rolfe's horses were a probable consequence of the breach. A further issue concerned the admissibility and weight of evidence relating to whether Mr Rolfe had been warned about potential problems with the chaff, and whether any such warning constituted a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation.

The court considered the evidence regarding communications between Robank and Mr Rolfe. While Robank had received a call from a veterinarian on 17 August 1999, suspecting botulism linked to their feed, and a new batch of chaff arrived on 17 August, the court found it improbable that Mr Rolfe was informed of the potential contamination by that date. The court also examined conflicting evidence about a conversation on 20 August 1999 between Mr Rolfe and Mr Frank van den Nieuwboer of Robank. Mr Rolfe testified that he inquired about rumours of sick horses and was assured there was no problem with Robank's products. Mr van den Nieuwboer denied recalling such a conversation, stating he would have acknowledged a problem with the chaff if asked. The court ultimately concluded that it could not be established that Mr Rolfe was warned of the contamination by Robank prior to his horses becoming ill, and therefore, the chain of causation was not broken.