Winstonu Pty Ltd v Pitson

Winstonu Pty Ltd, the appellant, brought an action against Pitson, the respondent, for recovery of the balance of the price of electrical goods supplied by the appellant to the respondent in 1995. The respondent contended that he was not liable for the cost of the goods, having made a payment of $30,000 only to facilitate the completion of the development. The case was initially heard in the Magistrates’ Court where the appellant claimed against the respondent as purchaser under the contract, adding as an alternative ground that the contract had been made between itself and Perryman, acting as agent for the respondent. Perryman later went into liquidation and the appellant has been unable to recover the amount owing. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant relied solely on the argument that it is entitled to recover the amount outstanding from the respondent on the ground that he was the undisclosed principal of Perryman at the time of entry into the contract.

The court had to decide whether the respondent was liable for the balance of the price of the goods supplied by the appellant. The court considered whether Perryman was acting as an agent for the respondent at the time the contract was made, and whether the respondent was the undisclosed principal. The court also considered whether there were any exceptions to the rule of undisclosed principal that would prevent the appellant from recovering the balance of the price from the respondent. The court examined the evidence, including the Project Management Agreement between the respondent and Perryman, and the letters between the parties. The court found that there was a written agreement between the respondent and Perryman appointing the latter as agent for the purpose of providing the services described under the Project Management Agreement.

The court found that the Project Management Agreement provided sufficient authority for Perryman, as agent for the respondent, to contract with the appellant for the supply of the relevant goods. The court found that the respondent, as principal, was liable for the price of those goods unless one of the exceptions to the undisclosed principal rule was established. The court found that there was not sufficient evidence to support any of the exceptions and accordingly the appeal was allowed. The court set aside the orders of the Supreme Court and in lieu thereof ordered that the appellant have judgment for the amount claimed and interest to be calculated. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court and of the appeal to the High Court.