CARR V. W. ANGLISS & CO. (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED

c.1g980/45

HE. Daw, Gor. Priat,, Mat.

e IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

..W... ANGLISS..&..CO..(AUST..). PLY... LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at__. Sydney. _ on__Friday, 3rd September, 1994.

Gy

JUDGMENT .( ORAL)

CARR

W. ANGLISS & CO. (AUST.

PTY. LIMITED

DIXON Cede "MoTTERNAN J. » WEBB J.

FULLAGAR J.

TAYLOR Je

Ve

W._ANGLISS & CO. (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED.

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales by which an appeal to that court from a District Court was allowed. In the District Court an action of damages was brought to recover from the defendant, which conducted a cold storage business, the value of certain goods entrusted to the defendant by the plaintiff which were stolen or-lost. The goods in question were rubberised rain coats which the plaintiff wished to carry over from ohne season to another and desired to have stored where they would not suffer from the heat of the summer. At the trial the question arose whether the contract of bailment upon which the defendant took the coats into its possession consisted in an oral executory contract containing no exceptions or limi- tations of liability or consisted in a receipt given for the goods endorsed with printed conditions expressed to relieve the defendant from liability in case of the loss of the goods. The learned District Court judge decided for himself without submitting the issue to the jury that the terms of bailment were constituted by an oral contract between the parties and that the receipt given by the defendant in exchange for the goods formed no part of the contract upon which the goods were held. The issue left to the jury was whether the goods were lost by the negligence of the defendant and upon this issue the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £766:10:0 damages. Upon appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District Court and entered'a verdict and judgment for the defendant, holding that the contract of bailment was constituted by the receipt for the goods and that it relieved the defendant from liability. We agree in the opinion of the Supreme