Bruce v Tyley [1916] HCA 34

OF AUSTRALIA.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

APPELLANT ; DEFENDANT, e AND _ 'TYLEY AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS. PLarntiFFs, ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

| Contract—Validity—Personal contract with the Crown—Services to be performed at' military camp—Suh-contract—Delegation of duties — Public policy — Impeding right to contract with Crown—Assignment of contract—Valuable consideration — Right of assignee to sa Act 1860 (S.A.) (23 & 24 Vict. No. 6), sec. 19.*

After the beginning of the war A, who was about to tender to the military authorities for the collection and removal of kitchen refuse from a military camp, agreed with B that in the event of the tender being accepted B should, for a certain monetary consideration, have the right to collect a certain portion

_ of the refuse. A then tendered for the work, and his tender was accepted. 'Subsequently B, by deed, in consideration of natural love and affection, assigned to his wife his interest in the contract between him and A.

Held, that B's wife was not entitled to sue A for breach of the contract between A and B:

_ By Barton and Isaacs JJ., on the ground that the contract between A and the military authorities was a personal one, the duties under which A had no right to delegate to B, and, therefore, that B had no legally enforceable

contract with A; *Sec. 19 of the Property Act of

thereof in his own name as the assignor

provides that "Every person Sia dell i assign any chose the assignee thereof may bring every Eesti 'or in respect

or the first of the assignors could have brought if no such assignment had been made, without prejudice nevertheless to any equity of the defendant as against the plaintiff or any such assignor."

H. C. oF A. 1916. —

ADELAIDE,

May 22, 28, 24, 26.

Barton, Isaacs and Gavan Duffy JJ.

HIGH COURT (1916.