Conirnct—Performance.—Sale of sheep— Dale of delivery— Evidence as to alteration
—Finding by jury— Delivery “ on or before” a specified date—Time of the
essence of the contract—Sale of Goods Act1890 (Qd.) (00 Viet. No. 0), secs. 13,
H. C. OF A.
U (2), 31, 01 (2).
1917.
Where the parties to a contract for the sale and purchase of live-stock depasturing on a station have therein specified a date on or before which the
B r i s b a n e ,
Aug. 2, 3,
delivery of the same is to be taken, time is of the essence of the contract unless 11
.
the contract has something in its terms which renders time unessential or
Burton ̂ Isaacs
unless the circumstances of the country deprive it of its normal character.
and Rich JJ.
The defendant in an action for breach of contract had, by a contract in writing dated 31st July 191 (i, agreed to sell and the plaintiff had agreed to pur chase sheep on the defendant’s station, and it was stipidated in the contract that pro forma delivery was to bo given and taken, and that the sheep should bo counted, at the defendant’s station on or before 21st August. The plaintiff did not attend or claim delivery till 22nd August, when the defendant refused to give it as being applied for too late. The jury having found that the date of delivery had not been altered to the 22nd,
Held, that the defendant was entitled to judgment.
Observations as to the duty of a purchaser of live-stock to notify the seller distinotly of the day on which the purchaser requires delivery, where by the contract delivery is to be taken “ on or before ” a certain date.
Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland : Browne V. Harrington, (1917) S.R. (Qd.), 172, reversed, and decision of Shand J. aflirmed.
298 HIGH COURT
[1917.
H . c. OF A. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland.
In an action brought in the Supreme Court by Clarence Lindsey
H a r r in g t o n Browne against William James Harrington, the plaintiff claimed
Brôwne damages for breach of contract relating to the sale of certain sheep
----- to him by the defendant, and in his defence the defendant denied the breach. The action was tried before Shand J. with a special jury. The jury having found that prior to 21st August 1916 it was not verbally agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant that the fro forma delivery of the sheep…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Thompson v Faraonio
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Harrington v Browne [1917] HCA 36
Case
[1917] HCA 36
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Thompson v Faraonio*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute arising from a contract for the sale of sheep. The core of the disagreement concerned the date of delivery of the sheep and whether time was of the essence in the contract.
The court was required to determine whether the delivery of the sheep "on or before" a specified date constituted a condition of the contract, meaning that failure to meet this deadline would entitle the buyer to terminate the agreement. This involved an examination of the Sale of Goods Act 1890 (Qld) and the common law principles governing contractual performance, particularly regarding the importance of time stipulations.
The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the contractual terms and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the parties' intentions regarding the delivery date. Applying established principles of contract law, the court considered whether the stipulation for delivery by a particular date was a condition precedent to the buyer's obligation to accept the sheep. The jury's finding regarding the delivery date was a significant factor in the court's determination of the contractual obligations and any potential breach.