Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd
118 CLR 429(Decision by: Kitto J)
Upper Hunter County District Council
v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd
Judges:
Barwick CJ
McTiernan J
Kitto JMenzies J
Windeyer J
Subject References:
Contract
Construction
Uncertainty
Whether capable of meaning
Judgment date: 8 March 1968
Sydney
Decision by:
Kitto J
I am unable to agree in the view of the Supreme Court that cl. 5 of the supply agreement is void for uncertainty. The costs referred to as "the supplier's costs" are necessarily its costs of carrying out the contract on its part, and are capable of ascertainment by an application of ordinary business concepts; "vary" is plain enough without an express statement of a standard; "in other respects than as has been hereinbefore provided" are words of specific exclusion, and none the less so because earlier provisions of the agreement may need to be construed in order to decide whether a particular variation in costs is within the exclusion; and the right to vary the maximum demand charge and energy charge is obviously subject to the implied limitation that the variation of charges shall not be more than is required to reflect the variation in costs. I need not discuss the matter in greater detail, for I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment of the Chief Justice and I agree in the reasons it contains for allowing the appeal.