Bartercard Ltd v Myallhurst Pty Ltd

[2000] QCA 445

Bartercard Ltd
vMyallhurst Pty Ltd

Court:
Supreme Court of Queensland

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

Hearing date: 8 August 2000
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

[1]
As may occur under r34.

[2]
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.

[3]
It was unnecessary to determine whether that was so in the present case.

[4]
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.

[5]
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd at 190; Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Plessnig (1989) 166 CLR 131 at 141.

[6]
Esanda Finance Corp Ltd v Plessnig (1988) 166 CLR 131, 141.

[7]
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170, 185.

[8]
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.

[9]
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.

[10]
O'Dea (above) at 400.

[11]
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co case above at pp 87-88.

[12]
[1989] VR 873.

[13]
Ibid 875.

[14]
Per Deane J in O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Proprietary Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359, 400.

[15]
(1986) 162 CLR 170, 193.

[16]
Ibid p193, p194.

[17]
cf O'Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (above) at 367 per Gibbs CJ.

[18]
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.

Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).