Kirsch v H P Brady Pty Ltd [1937] HCA 20

36 HIGH COURT [1937..

H.C. or A. property in the parcel of boots and shoes forwarded in fulfilment of 1937, the order did not pass until accepted by the customer. It was not Parerre until then that the parcel was appropriated to the contract with the ae ey assent of the buyer (Goods Act (Vict.), sec. 23, rule 5). In my

se opinion the judgment of Lowe J. was right, and the appeal should

Kony, — be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellant, Arthur Phillips & Just. Solicitors for the respondents, Williams & Matthews.

HDiwe hte ae 998) 15 BCL. 4a | [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} KIRSCH . " : é 5 5 s . APPELLANT ; DEFENDANT, | AND H. P. BRADY PTY. LTD. . g 7 . ResponDENT. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A, Conlract—Building contract—Construction—Payments dependent on architect's cer- | 1987, tificates—Form of certificates.

me 'The conditions of a building contract contained provisions as a result of

MELBOURNE, = hich payment to the builders was to be made, first, by payments of eighty hia per cent of the value of the work shown to be done by progress certificates Sypvey, by the architect unti! £2,000 was retained by the building owner; secondly, May 6. upon a certificate that the building was practically completed, by a payment tatiam cs, Making up ninety-nine per cent of the full certified value of the work done ; ich, Dison, thirdly, upon a certificate that the building had been completed to the entire

McTiernan JJ, satisfaction of the architect, by payment of the remaining one per cent. The

58 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

builders were required to deliver up possession as well as to obtain a certificate of final completion before they became entitled to payment of the ninety-nine per cent, and the remaining one per cent was not payable until six months after the date of the certificate of practical completion. The architect gave progress certificates entitling the builders to eighty per cent of the value of the work done, and, without obtaining any certificate of practical completion, the builders delivered up possession, 'The architect then gave the builders a certifi- cate simply stating that the builders were entitled to a named sum and that it was a final certificate and showing the amount of previous certificates.