PARKER V. WILLIAMS

peed IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at... 3YON@Y. W. M. Houston, Govt. Print., Melb. a on Wednesday,..21st. February. 1962.

©.3978/88

PARKER

Ve

WILLIAMS

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Ay

SUDGME!

PARKER

Ve

WLLLIAMS

DIXON C.J.

PARKER

Ve

I have found this a difficult case but in the end I have come to the conclusion that the appeal must fail, and substantially for the reasons stated in the judgment of Owen J. which sets out the facts and places upon them an interpretation or complexion which in the state of the evidence appears almost inevitable. One matter which, as it seems to me, stands out is that after July 12th, or at all events 15th, 1958 neither according to the documents nor according to what appears clearly enough to have been the true intention of the parties was the defendant-appellant to be under a personal liability for debt for money lent. The more I have considered the unsatisfying evidentiary materials in the case, whether documentary or oral, the more importance, . I have felt, attaches to clause 7 of the agreement of 27th February 1958. Perhaps the clause was an afterthought : that possibility is suggested by the fact that it follows a cancelled testimonium. But, be that as it may, it is consistent with a view of the transaction which may be shortly expressed thus. For reasons of his own the plaintiff wished to put in the form of options his proposal to acquire the shop, fittings and equipment; the defendant on his side was sufficiently assured that the plaintiff would exercise the options or one of them without delay and thus would provide the defendant with the funds he needed; the defendant would be left in possession as a lessee and would retain the right

ultimately to take back, if he chose to do it, the shop and

a

Be

2.

chattels but at a very high premium on the original price paid by the plaintiff. This version of the transaction is in some degree speculative and may"go somewhat further than the judgment of Owen J. in which I agree, but in any case it provides the defendant with no answer to this suit.