High Court of Australia
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LONG
COLE AND ANOTHER
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
4 4 Gourley, Gort, Print., Meth.
o.7109/51
LONG
ve
COLE
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with oosts.
JUDGMENT
LONG
WEBB J. RITTO J. TAYLOR J.
LONG
ve COLE WEBB J. JUDGMENT KITTO J. a TAYLOR J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered for the defendant in an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria in which the appellant was the plaintiff. In that action the appellant sued the respondents to recover the sum of £1,000 as and for the purchase price of certain shares alleged to have been sold by the former to the latter and for interest on the said sum and, alternatively, - for damages for a breach on the part of the respondents of an agreement to purchase the said shares constituted by their refusal to accept the said shares from the appellant.
The respondents are husband and wife and the evidence shows that the negotiations out of which the appellant's claims arose were,so far as the respondents were concerned, conducted by the male respondent alone. Counsel for the parties, however, agreed on the hearing of this appeal that the male respondent at all material times had authority to act for and on behalf of his wife and that no independent question arises concerning the liability of the latter. Accordingly it was agreed that if a judgment should be entered for the appellant it should be entered against both respondents.
The appellant is and was at all material times
a stock and share broker and he and the male respondent were
jointly interested in underwriting a new issue of shares in
a company known as Commando Engines Limited and, later, as Commando Industries Iimited. In 1947 this company, which
it is convenient to refer to as the old company, had an issued capital of some 30,000 shares of £1 each and in that year a proposal was made that further capital, to the extent of 60,000 £1 shares, should be issued. Discussions and negotiations for the issue of this further capital took place and on 2nd June, 1948, the appellant entered into an agreement with the old company to underwrite the whole of the new issue of 60,000 shares which were to be offered for public subscription. Within a day or two of the execution of this agreement the male respondent entered into an agreement with the appellant which subjected the former to a contingent liability to take some part of the new issue from the appellant. By this agreement the male respondent covenanted that in the event of the appellant requiring him so to do by written notice he would lodge with the appellant an . application for any number of shares of the new issue up to
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate