Sent v Jet Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1986] HCA 35
•26 June 1986
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sent v Jet Corp of Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 35
[1986] HCA 35
26 June 1986
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Sent against Jet Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd concerning a dispute arising from a contract for the sale of a business. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the respondent had breached a warranty that the business was being sold as a going concern.
The central legal question before the Court was whether the respondent's conduct in ceasing to trade the business for a period prior to settlement constituted a breach of the warranty that the business was being sold as a going concern. This required the Court to interpret the meaning of "going concern" in the context of a sale agreement and to determine the legal consequences of a breach of such a warranty.
The Court reasoned that the phrase "going concern" implies that the business is continuing to operate and generate revenue, and that it is intended to be transferred as an active enterprise. By ceasing to trade, the respondent had fundamentally altered the nature of the business being sold, thereby breaching the warranty. The Court applied principles of contract law concerning warranties and the implied understanding of commercial transactions.
The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had breached the warranty. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for determination of the appropriate remedies.
The central legal question before the Court was whether the respondent's conduct in ceasing to trade the business for a period prior to settlement constituted a breach of the warranty that the business was being sold as a going concern. This required the Court to interpret the meaning of "going concern" in the context of a sale agreement and to determine the legal consequences of a breach of such a warranty.
The Court reasoned that the phrase "going concern" implies that the business is continuing to operate and generate revenue, and that it is intended to be transferred as an active enterprise. By ceasing to trade, the respondent had fundamentally altered the nature of the business being sold, thereby breaching the warranty. The Court applied principles of contract law concerning warranties and the implied understanding of commercial transactions.
The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had breached the warranty. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for determination of the appropriate remedies.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
-
Abuse of Process
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Schiavello Group Pty Ltd v Exquisite Australia Pty Ltd [2015] VCC 4
Cases Citing This Decision
46
L and L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd B48/2001
[2001] HCATrans 609
L and L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd B48/2001
[2001] HCATrans 609
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0