DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Sharp v AME Products Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 42
PARTIES:
GRAHAM JOHN SHARP
(appellant)v
AME PRODUCTS PTY LTD
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
2606/14
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
27 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18 February 2015
JUDGE:
Everson DCJ
ORDER:
1. The appeal is dismissed
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – GUARANTEES CONTAINED IN CONTRACTS - APPEAL – whether indemnity limited to $20,000.
Linddales Pty Ltd v Marci Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] QSC 136, applied.
COUNSEL:
N Ferrett for the appellant
J C Ashcroft for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
SR Wallace & Wallace for the appellant
Carswell & Company for the respondent
Introduction
This is an appeal against the decision of a magistrate delivered on 19 June 2014 at Brisbane ordering judgment for the respondent in the sum of $95,327.28 together with interest and costs.
The respondent successfully sued the appellant on a guarantee he gave as the director of a company which was provided with credit by the respondent.
The relevant facts
The relevant facts are contained in the judgment of the magistrate. They are not contentious. The appellant was a director of a company, Hunts Automotive Electrical Services Pty Ltd (“the company”). The company applied to the respondent for credit. In the application form, it stated “Estimated Monthly Purchases: $10000” and “Credit Required: $20000.00”. An attachment headed “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE” set out the terms and conditions upon which the respondent would provide credit to the appellant. Relevantly, clause 4 was in the following terms:
“4. CREDIT LIMIT
4.1AME reserves the right to review and vary the credit limit of the applicant at any time.”
“AME” is a reference to the respondent. This document was dated 4 April 2006 and signed by the appellant in his capacity as director of the company. The application form together with the attached document constitute the contract for the provision of credit by the respondent to the company (“the contract”).
Attached to the contract is a guarantee also dated 4 June 2006 and signed by the appellant as guarantor (“the guarantee”). The guarantee is in the following terms:
“In consideration of the company at my/our request extending credit to the applicant, I/we Graham Sharp of 112 Neills Rd, Habana, and on behalf of the applicant (together with his or our said and each of their executors, administrators and assigned [sic] called “guarantor”) hereby jointly and severally guarantee to the company the payment by the applicant of all monies which may at any time by [sic] payable by the applicant to the company in relation to goods and services of any kind or nature whatsoever provided to the applicant by the company at the request of the applicant upon demand in writing being made for such monies upon me/us or any or more of us. This guarantee shall be a continuing…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sharp v AME Products 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] QDC 42
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of a contractual indemnity clause. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the clause limited the indemnity to $20,000, or if it allowed for a broader scope of coverage. The interpretation hinged on the language used in the contract and whether it was ambiguous or clear in its terms. The Court also considered whether the contract's purpose and the surrounding circumstances provided any guidance on the intended scope of the indemnity.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal examined the contract's language and the context in which it was written. It found that the clause was clear and unambiguous, limiting the indemnity to $20,000. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the indemnity should cover a larger sum, stating that the contract's language did not support such an interpretation. The Court also noted that the contract's purpose and the surrounding circumstances did not suggest that the parties intended for the indemnity to cover a broader scope. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.