Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
3 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson (course of dealings)Immaterial to givereasonable notice if parties have a history of dealings (caught ferry before) (1904) 4 CLR 379(High Court of Australia) |
o It is immaterialwhether Balmain did what was reasonable to direct public attention to thenotice. o Robertsonhad entered entered the wharf with knowledge of the conditions imposed byBalmain (having used the ferry service many times before) which Robertsonadmitted in evidence. o He musttherefore be taken to have impliedly agreed [on this occasion]:§ that he would not ask for egress from the wharf byland without payment of another penny; and§ that he consented to the Balmain’s employeespreventing him from leaving in that way without such further payment (they weretherefore justified in using such force as was reasonably necessary for thatpurpose). |
|
|
Rinaldi & Patroni Pty Ltd v Precision MouldingsLtd (1986) WAR 131(Supreme Court, WA) |
• Does it appear that the parties had, over a period, been conductingbusiness upon terms excluding liability? If so, then arguably the partiescontracted on that basis on the instant occasion. It was not a contractual document – Precision reasonably regarded it asnothing more than an acknowledgment of delivery. The cart note was headed “Please receive from Rinaldi & Patroni Pty Ltd” being a request by Rinaldi to the consignee toaccept delivery of the boat. o Both parties regarded the cart note as no more than identification ofthe act of delivery for the consignee. |
|
|
State Rail Authority (NSW) v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 170(Court of Appeal, NSW) |
· however “complete” a contractual document may look, the court cannotexclude evidence [from its consideration] of oral terms if the other partyasserts that such oral terms were agreed; · if the assertions about the existence of oral terms are found to beproven [after the court has considered the evidence], then the court hasobviously found the agreement to be partly oral (in which case the PER does notapply); · if the assertions about oral terms are not found to be proven, the courthas simply found that the agreement is wholly in writing and, by necessaryimplication, excluded evidence of terms being found elsewhere (this does giverise to any PER being applied). [His Honourfound that the oral assurances were not terms on the facts]. |
