Gelling v Crespin [1917] HCA 44

OF AUSTRALIA. 443

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

a 3 : : : z . APPELLANT;

AND

IN AND ANOTHER ety di.i~ > RESPONDENTS.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF : NEW SOUTH WALES.

apossibility—Acquisition of wheat by State—Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 = —— 1.8.W.) (No. 27 of 1914), secs. 3, 7, 8. SypNey.

Aug. 27, 28, Where a document is prepared and executed with the intention that it 29; 3

hall be the record of a contract, prior negotiations are inadmissible for the e of qualifying the contract expressed in the document. prea eo

by the broker who brought about the sale, which note described the quantity and quality of certain wheat together with the season

' its growth, y Held, that evidence was not admissible to show that the sale was of a specific cel of wheat.

ered in each of the first three months of 1915. 'The defendants elected to er at Sydney. On 24th December 1914 the Government of New South es, pursuant to the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 (N.S.W.), which had come

H. C. or A.

1917. Sw

GELLING v. CRESPIN.

HIGH COURT

excluding wheat then actually in transit to other States of the Commonw and thereafter the authority controlling the wheat so acquired would to grain merchants.

Held, that on the defendants' election to deliver at Sydney they were b to deliver wheat grown in New South Wales in the season 1914-1915 ¥ was of fair average quality of that season according to the standard in South Wales for that season.

Held, also, that in the absence of evidence that it was impossible for ¢ defendants to obtain wheat of the specified kind then in, or in course of tran: to, other States sufficient in quantity to satisfy the contract, the defen were not excused from performing the contract, even if the aequisition by Government would have afforded an excuse upon such evidence.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales: Gelling v. Ore 16 S.R. (N.S.W.), 558, reversed.