Ockerby and Co Ltd v Watson [1918] HCA 64

OF AUSTRALIA.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.1

OCKERBY & CO. LTD. . 5 i - . APPELLANTS ;

AND

¥ 2 - ' , P % . RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

dition precedent—Warranty—Evidence.

'A company, which expected to be appointed agents for the Government __ of Western Australia in connection with the wheat scheme, agreed to employ W. as sub-agent. The company failed to secure the appointment, and con- - sequently terminated W.'s employment.

Held, on the evidence, that the company warranted that they would be appointed Government agents, and that they were therefore liable to W. for damages for breach of contract.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McMillan C.J.)

from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

_ Ockerby & Co. Ltd. had acted as agents for the Government of estern Australia for the season 1915-1916 for the purpose of quiring wheat in connection with the wheat scheme under the Marketing Act 1916 (W.A.), and George Knight Watson had

again acquire wheat for the coming season, an interview took place out 11th October between him and the managing director of the , at which an agreement for the employment of Watson

Contract—Agent—Employment of sub-agent—Impossibility of performance—Con- H.C. or A.

1918.

eS PERTH,

Oct. 16, 17.

Barton, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

432 HIGH COURT {1918,

H.C. or A. in connection with the 1916-1917 harvest was entered into. The mee Company, having failed to secure such appointment, terminated Ockerny & Watson's employment on 14th December 1916, and he brought an Ce dae action against them in the Supreme Court for damages for breach Watson. of contract. The action was tried before McMillan C.J. without a jury. There was a conflict of evidence at the trial as to whether the agreement was subject to a condition that the Company should be appointed agents for the Government to acquire wheat during j the season 1916-1917 in connection with the scheme. His Honor — held that the agreement was not subject to a condition, and judg- ment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be ascertained. From that decision the defendants now, by leave, appealed to