175:
for the failure of the condition precedent, and parties would be restored to their original position. However, in a case where only one party has knowledge of the subject matter (such as the present circumstances), and the other simply relies on what the first party intimates, then there could be no condition precedent. The first party promises or guarantees the existence of the subject matter and will be in breach if it does not exist.
179:
that there was a tanker; (3) the fact that there was no tanker made it certain that this expense would be wasted. The plaintiffs have in this way a starting-point. They make a prima-facie case. The fact that the expense was wasted flowed prima facie from the fact that there was no tanker; and the first fact is damage, and the second fact is breach of contract."
174:
A general ruling that can be gleaned from the court's judgment is that in circumstances where parties have equal knowledge as to the existence of the subject matter, and it turned out to be false, then it would justify the implication of a condition precedent. In that case, the contract would be void
144:
supposedly containing oil. The McRae brothers went to
Samarai and found no tanker, and that there was no such place as the Jourmand Reef. It later became clear that the Commission officer had made a 'reckless and irresponsible' mistake in thinking that they had a tanker to sell (the Court found that
178:
The High Court considered the measure of damages, as this was not a simple case of nondelivery of goods. In opposition to CDC’s argument that McRae’s expenditure was not wasted, Dixon and
Fullagar JJ stated: “They can say: (1) this expense was incurred; (2) it was incurred because you promised us
152:
Furthermore, in relation to the expenditure incurred by McRae, the CDC argued that “Non constat that the expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs would not have been equally wasted. If the promise that there was a tanker in situe had been performed, she might still have been found worthless or not
148:
The McRae brothers commenced an action claiming damages against the
Commission. First they claimed damages for breach of contract to sell a tanker at the location specified. Second, they claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation that there was a tanker. Third, they claimed damages for a
149:
negligent failure to disclose that there was no tanker at the place specified after the fact became known to the
Commissioner. CDC argued there was no liability for breach of contract because it was void given the subject matter did not exist.
171:
was distinguished because there the parties had both shared the assumption the corn existed, but here CDC had actually promised the tanker existed and therefore had assumed the risk that it did not.
153:
susceptible of profitable salvage operations or of any salvage operations at all. How, then… can the plaintiffs say that their expenditure was wasted because there was no tanker in existence?"
221:
John Gava, "Sir Owen Dixon, Strict
Legalism and McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission" (2009) 9 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 141 (No 2, Winter 2009)
208:
165:
held that McRae succeeded in damages for breach of contract. They rejected the contract was void because CDC had promised the tanker did exist.
323:
313:
318:
333:
145:
they had relied on mere gossip). The McRae brothers incurred considerable expense in fitting out a salvage operation.
137:
193:
103:
328:
294:
162:
117:
225:
188:
121:
64:
222:
167:
87:
79:
282:
256:
251:
Robert
Brooking, "Contract - Mistake - Non-Existent Subject-Matter" in "Case Notes" (1952)
40:
199:
286:
230:
Dennis Paling, "McRae v
Commonwealth Disposals Commission - A Forgotten Decision" (1975)
44:
125:
307:
204:
252:
245:
231:
83:
90:
238:
141:
255:
Res
Judicatae: The Magazine of the Law Students' Society of Victoria
248:
Queensland
Justice of the Peace and Local Authorities' Journal 149
140:
sold McRae a shipwreck of a tanker on the "Jourmand Reef", near
237:
J G Fleming, "Common
Mistake" (1952) 15 Modern Law Review
274:
272:
270:
268:
97:
75:
70:
59:
54:
36:
28:
23:
128:about the possibility of performing an agreement.
244:"Non-Existent Subject-Matter of Contract" (1951)
288:
46:
8:
20:
279:McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
113:McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
24:McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
234:New Zealand Law Journal 174 (6 May 1975)
264:
7:
14:
138:Commonwealth Disposals Commission
16:1951 Australian contract law case
1:
324:High Court of Australia cases
350:
194:Frustration in English law
314:English contract case law
102:
319:Australian contract law
163:High Court of Australia
118:Australian contract law
32:High Court of Australia
334:1951 in Australian law
207:, (1867) LR 2 HL 149,
283:[1951] HCA 79
205:[1867] UKHL 1
41:[1951] HCA 79
189:English contract law
122:English contract law
45:(1951) 84
168:Courturier v Hastie
120:case, relevant for
241:(No 2, April 1952)
226:Taylor and Francis
259:(No 1: July 1952)
124:, concerning the
109:
108:
341:
329:1951 in case law
298:
290:
276:
71:Court membership
48:
21:
349:
348:
344:
343:
342:
340:
339:
338:
304:
303:
302:
301:
277:
266:
218:
200:Cooper v Phibbs
185:
159:
134:
17:
12:
11:
5:
347:
345:
337:
336:
331:
326:
321:
316:
306:
305:
300:
299:
263:
262:
261:
260:
249:
242:
235:
228:
217:
214:
213:
212:
209:House of Lords
196:
191:
184:
181:
158:
155:
133:
130:
126:common mistake
107:
106:
100:
99:
95:
94:
77:
76:Judges sitting
73:
72:
68:
67:
61:
57:
56:
52:
51:
38:
34:
33:
30:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
346:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
320:
317:
315:
312:
311:
309:
296:
292:
284:
280:
275:
273:
271:
269:
265:
258:
254:
250:
247:
243:
240:
236:
233:
229:
227:
224:
220:
219:
215:
210:
206:
202:
201:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
186:
182:
180:
176:
172:
170:
169:
164:
156:
154:
150:
146:
143:
139:
131:
129:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
105:
101:
96:
92:
89:
85:
81:
78:
74:
69:
66:
62:
60:Appealed from
58:
53:
50:
42:
39:
35:
31:
27:
22:
19:
297:(Australia).
278:
198:
177:
173:
166:
160:
151:
147:
135:
112:
111:
110:
55:Case history
18:
104:Frustration
63:High Court
308:Categories
295:High Court
287:(1951) 84
216:References
80:McTiernan
49: 377
37:Citations
223:Adelaide
183:See also
157:Judgment
116:, is an
98:Keywords
88:Fullagar
142:Samarai
65:Webb J
281:
203:
132:Facts
84:Dixon
29:Court
211:(UK)
161:The
136:The
86:and
291:377
289:CLR
239:229
47:CLR
310::
293:,
285:,
267:^
246:45
232:50
91:JJ
82:,
43:,
257:3
253:6
93:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.