Willbros Int. P/L v Emeco Int. P/L

Willbros International P/L and Emeco International P/L were involved in a dispute over a contract regarding the hire of equipment. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The primary issue was whether a binding agreement had been formed for the hire of equipment over a two-year period. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was an implied agreement terminable on reasonable notice, if promissory estoppel applied, and if part performance could be claimed.

The court examined the conduct of the parties to ascertain if there was an implied agreement terminable on reasonable notice. It found that while there was no formal written agreement for a two-year period, the conduct of the parties suggested an implied agreement that could be terminated on reasonable notice. The court further analysed the concept of promissory estoppel and determined that, on the facts presented, there were no circumstances that warranted its application. Moreover, the court concluded that part performance was not available as a remedy in this case.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that no enforceable agreement for a two-year hire period existed, and there was no promissory estoppel. Part performance was also not available. The court ruled against the claim that these elements applied in this case. The final orders of the court were that no binding contract for the hire of equipment for two years was found, and the parties were not subject to promissory estoppel or part performance claims.