Sue v Hill & Anor - Sharples v Hill & Anor

The applicants, Sue and Sharples, sought declarations and injunctions against the respondent, Hill, concerning the validity of a contract for the sale of land. The dispute arose from an agreement for the sale of a property at 140 Old South Head Road, Vaucluse, New South Wales. The applicants alleged that the contract was void for uncertainty and that the respondent had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the contract for the sale of land was void for uncertainty due to the manner in which the purchase price was to be determined. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the mechanism for fixing the price, which involved a valuation by a valuer to be appointed by the parties, was sufficiently certain to give rise to a binding agreement. Additionally, the court was asked to determine whether the respondent's conduct in relation to the sale constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act.

The High Court held that the contract was not void for uncertainty. The Court reasoned that where a contract provides a mechanism for determining a price, even if that mechanism involves a future valuation, the contract will generally be upheld provided the mechanism is workable and not illusory. In this instance, the Court found that the appointment of a valuer and the subsequent valuation provided a sufficiently certain method for determining the purchase price. Regarding the Trade Practices Act claim, the Court found no evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct. The Court applied established principles of contract law concerning certainty of essential terms and the interpretation of contractual provisions for price determination.

The High Court dismissed the applicants' application for declarations and injunctions.