Swift Australian Co (Pty) Ltd v Boyd Parkinson

Swift Australian Co (Pty) Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed its appeal from a judgment of a District Court. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for goods sold and delivered to a company, Boyd Parkinson (the respondent), which had acted as a guarantor for the debt. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the respondent had effectively revoked its guarantee before the goods were supplied.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent's purported revocation of its guarantee was effective in law. Specifically, the court had to consider the conditions under which a continuing guarantee could be terminated and whether the respondent had satisfied those conditions in its attempt to withdraw from the guarantee. This involved an examination of the nature of a continuing guarantee and the requirements for its valid revocation.

The Court held that a continuing guarantee, which is an offer to guarantee future debts, can be revoked by the guarantor at any time before the offer is accepted by the creditor through the supply of goods or services. However, for the revocation to be effective, the guarantor must provide clear and unequivocal notice to the creditor of their intention to revoke. In this instance, the Court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient notice to the appellant of its intention to revoke the guarantee prior to the supply of the goods in question. Therefore, the revocation was ineffective, and the respondent remained liable under the guarantee. The appeal was allowed.