This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd V Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957)

1444 words - 6 pages

Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957)

PART I
Summary of Facts

The dispute occurred in Victoria between a registered company, Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd ("the plaintiff") and an incorporated company, Nathan's Merchandise Pty Ltd. ("the defendant), where both parties operated their business. Two previous binding contracts (orders No. 58 and No. M57) were made in communications on 14th May 1951 and 2nd August 1951 respectively, each for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of 1,000,000 Hungarian .22 bullets. A consignment of 1,800,000 bullets for the above orders was dispatched from Sydney to the defendant by rail on the 12th February 1952 and was ...view middle of the document...

The plaintiff first repudiated this offer on the 3rd April, but by the 4th of June 1952, a second critical letter was sent out by the plaintiff's solicitor stating its acceptance of the defendant's offer. On 8th July 1952, the defendant propose that it will only purchase 800,000 bullets as opposed to the contracted amount of 1,800,000(less 200,000 which had been delivered and paid) as the contract on the 2nd August had not been accepted by the plaintiff which denied it. And no delivery instructions were given by the defendant on or before the 30th September.

Procedural History
In the first instance, Clancy J held in the Supreme Court that a new contract for 1,600,000 bullets had been formed in Sydney by the correspondence, and the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant who then appealed to the Full Supreme Court of New South Wales, which allowed the appeal and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant. The subsequent action arose when the plaintiff further appealed for two breaches of contract by the defendant, for the sale of Hungarian .22 long rifle bullets. Having believed that previous contracts were to be rescinded, the plaintiff argued that the contract was made in New South Wales when it is accepted on the 4th June 1951.

PART II
Issues and reasoning
In settling whether the defendant was in breach of contract, the principal matter in question was to consider whether the 21st March 1952 and June 4th 1952 letters of agreement constituted a new and independent contract. In reaching such a conclusion, it was necessary to identify in which jurisdiction, if not the Victorian courts, should the trial be held. Adapting the postal acceptance rule, which asserts the validity of acceptance at the time of posting, it was found that the contract was conceded to be formed in Sydney since the offer made on the 21st March was accepted by a letter dispatched by the Plaintiff from Sydney; thus this allowed the plaintiff to set its trial wholly in New South Wales. As a result, the Plaintiff had voluntarily confined itself to the two correspondences above-mentioned.

The next matter involved the question of whether the ‘new' contract constituted a variation of the two original contracts or whether it had the effect of rescinding the original contracts. Kitto J. verified that whether or not an existing contract is considered to have been rescinded, depends on the intention of the parties involved. When examining the two critical correspondences of 21st March 1952/ June 4th 1952, it was held that no intention by the defendant to discharge the previous 1951 contracts was found; the letters of offer and acceptance did not constitute a new and substituted contract, and hence all conditions of the earlier contracts were to be binding. Assuming that the contracts is of variation, the final substantial issue to be anlaysed was whether the Plaintiff's acceptance of the original contracts was effective for the Defendant to be in...

Other Papers Like Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd V Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957)

Business Law Essay

3883 words - 16 pages and have the power to sue or be sued in its own name. A company is distinct from its director, shareholders, employees and creditors as recognised by the court in the case of Salomon v. A. Salomon Co Pty Ltd [1897] AC 22. The basic principle of corporate law regard an incorporated company as a separate legal entity for the purposes of legal analysis, separated from people who established them, who invest money in it, and who direct and manage its

Legt2741 Assignment

1734 words - 7 pages Veil on the Basis of an Implied Agency: A Re-evaluation of Smith, Stone and Knight” (2005) 23 Company and Securities Law Journal 7. Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2004] NSWSC 695 (13 August 2004) [144] (Einstein J) McConnel Dowell Constructors (Aus)Pth Ltd v Gas Transmissions Services WA(Operations) Pty Ltd [2007]VSC 301; taken from Australian Corporation Law, A. Hargovan, J. Harris Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22

Business Law

4546 words - 19 pages subsidiary that is not wholly owned – act in the interest of the subsidiary Objective test : whether an intelligent and honest person in the position of the director could have reasonably believed that the decision was for the benefit of the coy -Charterbridge Corp Led v Lloyds Bank Ltd; - Farrow Finance Co Led v Farrow Properties Pty Ltd; -Equiticorp Finance Ltd v Bank of New Zealand – both benefit another coy in the group

Partnership Act

1208 words - 5 pages . | | | |- United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd | | | |Partnership Act itself provides for partnership for single undertaking (s.32b) in relation to

Workshop Questions – Week 3

778 words - 4 pages /2013 | STEKI TAVERNA NEWTOWN NSW | LIKE TO EAT OUT | 09/07/2013 | TICKETEK PTY LTD WEB SYDNEY AUS | LIKE TO GO TO MUSIC EVENTS | 09/07/2013 | TICKETEK PTY LTD WEB SYDNEY AUS | LIKE TO GO TO MUSIC EVENTS | 05/07/2013 | BPAY CBA0147914419 | | 24/06/2013 | BPAY CBA0545150248 | | 21/06/2013 | AAMI 2797 MELBOURNE VIC | MY CAR IS INSURED | 06/06/2013 | INITIAL.C TECHNOLOGY REGENTS PARK AUS | I BUY TECHNOLOGY | 31/05/2013 | HERTZ AUSTRALIA P/L SOUTH MELBOUR AUS | RENT CARS | 24/05/2013 | BPAY CBA0348046133 | | 23/05/2013 | STA TRAVEL PTY LTD SYDNEY AUS | I TRAVEL OVERSEAS |

Fins Bank

2455 words - 10 pages ) authorises financial institutions to carry out financial intermediation. Copyright  2007 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd PPTs t/a Financial Institutions Management 2e, by Lange, Saunders, Anderson ,Thomson and Cornett Slides prepared by Maike Sundmacher 1-2 Products Sold by the Financial Services Industry • Comparing the products of DIs in 1950 and 2006: – Much greater distinction between types of DIs in terms of products in 1950

Law Contract Case Study

1007 words - 5 pages -offer. A counter-offer has the effect of destroying the original offer and is known as a new offer. With a counter-offer, the attempted acceptance is invalid and there is no contract. (see Turner Kempson & Co Pty Ltd v Camm). Without a valid contract, breach of contract is not committed. Application In this case, the attempted acceptance by the offeree is not a valid acceptance, but is known as a counter-offer. The terms are used to describe the

auditing and assurance assignment

679 words - 3 pages operations and collaborating closely with Universities and the Australian CSIRO, to marry the latest science with 188 years of agricultural experience. 3、Market Shares and Competitors Beef cattle farming Australian Agricultural Company Ltd (4.7%); Lake Woods Holdings Pty Ltd (1.2%); Heytesbury Pty ltd (1.0%). Livestock and other agricultural supplies wholesaling Agrium SP Holdings Pty Ltd (6.5%); Elders Limited (5.3%); Namoi Cotton Co-operateve Ltd (3.4%); Cargill Australian Ltd (1.5%); Deltapine (1.0%); Australian Agricultural Company Ltd (

Accounting

1281 words - 6 pages purposes. Raising capital in this case is a proper purpose, since it is to enter into a joint venture with its new subsidiary. (Harlowe’s Nominees Pty Ltd v Woodside(Lakes Entrance) Oil Co NL). Within one month after a new share is made, the company must notify ASIC of the details of the issue in accordance with s254X. Improper purpose: cite case Diluting the shareholding of a member (Kokotovich Construction Pty Ltd v Wallington) Entrenching

Financial Management

683 words - 3 pages QUESTION 1 |Description of user |Internal or External user |Type of user | |Mr Brown owns all the shares of Builders | | | |(Pty) Ltd. |INTERNAL |OWNER | |Manny’s

Environinvest Ltd Case Study

2811 words - 12 pages the defendants upon the alleged activities they had done towards abusing their power as former directors of Environinvest Limited. Referencing Environinvest Ltd v Pescott & Ors (No.2); Environinvest Ltd v Blackburne Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) [2012] VSC 151 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Lonie, J 2009, The Interesting Curse of Environinvest, Financial Services Newsletter, viewed 28 May 2014,<http://www.hdy.com.au/Media/docs/The

Related Essays

Dasreef Pty Ltd V Hawchar Essay

1137 words - 5 pages Introduction The High Court’s decision in Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 has been significant as the threshold requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are clarified (French 2012). This essay will first discuss the facts of the case, followed by the technical requirements and perceived difficulties related to expert evidence identified by the court in this case. Facts Mr Hawchar, the respondent claimed damages from his

Trio Capital Limited (Admin App) V Act Superannuation Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] Nswsc 286

4731 words - 19 pages NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT CITATION: Trio Capital Limited (Admin App) v ACT Superannuation Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] NSWSC 286 JURISDICTION: Equity Division Corporations List FILE NUMBER(S): 2010/011359 HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2010 JUDGMENT DATE: 16 April 2010 PARTIES: Stephen James Parbery, Neil Singleton & Nicholas Martin in their capacity as Joint and Several Administrators of Trio Capital Limited

Financial Statement Analysis Of Wuliangye Co., Ltd

2652 words - 11 pages |WULIANGYE YIBIN CO.,LTD | | Financial Statement Analysis | | | | WULIANGYE

Case C 426/11: Mark Alemo Herron And Others V. Parkwood Leisure Ltd

1555 words - 7 pages Case C-426/11: Mark Alemo-Herron and Others v. Parkwood Leisure Ltd. Introduction This issue was about collective agreements that are negotiated regularly, whether they can bind an employer following a transer of employment. It is really a fundamental question, mainly in contracting out services, when the new employer may wish to make savings by not increasing wages. In this case it should be decided if in the transferred employees' terms