Bartercard Ltd v Myallhurst Pty Ltd
[2000] QCA 445Bartercard Ltd
vMyallhurst Pty Ltd
Judges:
Davies JA
Thomas JA
Ambrose J
Subject References:
CONTRACTS
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
PENALTIES AND LIQUI-DATED DAMAGES
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
respondent operated business facilitating trade bar-tering between members
appellant company's membership terminated in circumstances where it had a negative trade dollar balance
whether contractual provision requiring payment of negative trade dollar balance in actual currency amounted to a penalty
where appellant received goods and services of substantial value
whether windfall to respondent
whether 30 day period for trading out of debt inadequate
genuine pre-estimate of the loss when precise estimation impossible
Case References:
Acron Pacific Ltd v Offshore Oil NL - (1985) 157 CLR 514
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin - (1986) 162 CLR 170
Campbell Discount Co v Bridge - [1962] AC 600
CRA Ltd
&
Anor v New Zealand Goldfields Investments
&
Anor - [1989] VR 873
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd - [1915] AC 79
Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Plessnig - (1988) 166 CLR 131
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Production Co - [1983] 2 All ER 205
O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd - (1983) 152 CLR 359
Judgment date: 27 October 2000
Order
Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed.
Counsel for the appellants: M D Martin
Solicitors for the appellants: Morgan Conley
Counsel for the respondent: A J H Morris QC
Solicitors for the respondent: Legal Services Bartercard Ltd
As may occur under r34.
Campbell Discount Co v Bridge [1962] AC 600; Export Credits v Universal Oil Co [1983] 1 WLR 399; O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359 at 367, 390; AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170 at 184 - 185, 211.
It was unnecessary to determine whether that was so in the present case.
Cf the paradox identified by Lord Denning in Campbell Discount Co v Bridge [1962] AC 600 at 629. But see AMEV-UDC at 199. It was not contended for the appellant in this Court that there was anything in the relationship between the parties giving rise to unconscionability.
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd at 190; Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Plessnig (1989) 166 CLR 131 at 141.
Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Plessnig (1988) 166 CLR 131, 141.
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170, 185.
Including Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Proprietary Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359; Acron Pacific Ltd v Offshore Oil NL (1985) 157 CLR 514; AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (above) at 86-87; O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (above) 368, 399.
O'Dea (above) at 400.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co case above at pp 87-88.
[1989] VR 873.
Ibid 875.
Per Deane J in O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Proprietary Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359, 400.
(1986) 162 CLR 170, 193.
Ibid p193, p194.
cf O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (above) at 367 per Gibbs CJ.
O'Dea (above) at 367; Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co [1983] 2 All ER 205; Meagher Gummow and Lahane Equity Doctrines and Remedies 3rd edition para1817.