ESANDA LIMITED V. ROBERT'S QUEENSLAND PTY. LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

a ESANDA LIMITED

v.

QRIGINAL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

on_..FRIDAY.18th JUNE,1965.........

'A.C. Brooks, Government Printer, Melbourne 7630/40

ESANDA LIMITED

ve

ROBERT'S QUEENSLAND PTY. LIMITED

Appeal dismissed with costs.

ESANDA LIMTTED

Ve

RO) £ . je

BARWICK C.J. KITTO J.

In an action for damages for the breach of a warranty that a stone crushing machine was fit for a specific purpose the plaintiff, the present respondent, obtained judgment against the appellant for £27,339.15. 6. This amount represented an actual out-of-pocket loss of £15,889.15. 6 incurred by the respondent and the sum of £12,000 for the profit which it was estimated the respondent would have made in carrying out a contract with the Commonwealth, the nature and terms of which were made known to the appellants, if the machine had been as warranted. An appeal to this Court by the present appellant was partially successful and a new trial limited to the issue of damages was directed (37 AL.J.R. 289). The reason why a new trial was directed was because it did not appear how the learned trial judge had estimated the profit which it was probable that the respondent would have earned if there had been no breach of warranty and the respondent's contract with the Commonwealth had been carried to completion. Farther it was not shown on the appeal that the estimate of £12,000 was justified upon the evidence.

The new trial has now taken place and it has resulted in judgment for the present respandent for £26,889. 15. 6, that is to say, £1,000 less than the judgment originally entered. This amount represents £15,889.15. 6 being the proved out-of-pocket loss of the respondent and the sum of £11,000 in substitution for the sum of £12,000 originally assessed as profit which it was probable the res- pondent would have made out of his contract if the warranty had been satisfied. As was the case in the earlier appeal there