NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : GILLOGLY v. IAMA AGRIBUSINESS PTY. LIMITED [2002] NSWCA 251 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40397/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 11 December 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 August 2002
PARTIES : Allan Gillogly (Appellant) IAMA Agribusiness Pty. Limited (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Powell JA at 1; Beazley JA at 71; Grove J at 116
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 15/99 (Moree) FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Knight DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : J.S. van Aalst (Appellant) D.J. Russell (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Abbott Pardy & Jenkins (Glen Innes) (Appellant) Webb & Boland (Moree) (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : SALE OF GOODS - Contract for sale of quantity of grain - Contemplated that grain acquired by vendor would be delivered into third party storage depot - Storage agreement provided that grain for storage might be commingled with other grain of same type and grade - Vendor not entitled to receive back grain delivered into storage but entitled to receive or to transfer grain of same type and grade - Purchaser to be entitled to call for delivery of grain by instalments as and when required - Whether property in grain acquired by vendor passed to third party or to purchaser - SALE OF GOODS - Contract for sale of quantity of grain - Purchaser to be entitled to delivery of grain by instalments as and when required - After about forty per cent of grain had been delivered several quantities of contaminated grain were delivered - Whether purchaser could terminate contract for breach D LEGISLATION CITED : Sale of Goods Act 1923 Chapman Bros v. Virco Bros and Company Limited (1933) 49 CLR 306 Farnsworth v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 504 Freeth v. Burr (1874) LR 9 CP 208 CASES CITED: George Wills & Co Limited v. Davids Pty. Limited (1957) 98 CLR 77 Maple Flock Company Limited v. Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Limited [1934] 1 KB 148 The Mersey Steel and Iron Co (Limited) v. Naylor, Benzon & Co (1884) LR 9 App Cas 434 The South Australian Insurance Company v. Randell (1869) LR 3 PC 101 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate