McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951):
When a seller asserts the existence of a subject matter, and the buyer relies on it, that assertion is part of the contract. The seller cannot claim mutual mistake if the mistake was due to their own reckless representations.
| Case Name: McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission |
| Citations: [1951] HCA 79; (1951) 84 CLR 377; [1951] ALR 771; (1951) 25 ALJR 425 |
| Court: High Court of Australia |
| Decision Date: 27th August, 1951 |
| Judges: Dixon, McTiernan, and Fullagar JJ (majority) – Webb J (at trial) |
| Legal Focus: Contract law, Sale of goods, Non-existence of subject matter, Mistake, Damages |
Key Facts (McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission)
The Commonwealth Disposals Commission advertised a sale of an “oil tanker” that was allegedly stranded on “Jourmaund Reef” near Samarai, New Guinea. The plaintiffs (McRae Trading Company) made a tender, which was accepted. However, the stated location did not have any such tanker.
The plaintiffs spent a lot of money trying to salvage what they believed was a stranded oil tanker based on the defendant’s representations. It was eventually determined that no such tanker existed at or near the stated location.
Legal Issues
Was a valid contract formed despite the non-existence of the tanker? Could the contract be voided for mutual mistake? Were the plaintiffs entitled to damages for breach of contract?
High Court Decision – McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
The High Court held that there was a valid contract. The Commission promised that there was an oil tanker at a specified location, and the plaintiffs relied on that.
The contract was not void for mistake, because the mistake (if any) was induced by the Commission’s negligent and unfounded assertions. The plaintiffs relied solely on what the Commission told them.
The conduct of the Commission was not innocent; it recklessly and carelessly represented the existence of a tanker without proper verification. They had no reasonable grounds to assert that.
The plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages for breach of contract based on the wasted expenditure incurred in reliance on the promise.
In the words of Dixon and Fullagar JJ:
“Even if they be credited with a real belief in the existence of a tanker, they were guilty of the grossest negligence. It is impossible to say that they had any reasonable ground for such a belief. Having no reasonable grounds for such a belief, they asserted by their advertisement to the world at large, and by their later specification of locality to the plaintiffs, that they had a tanker to sell.”
“They must have known that any tenderer would rely implicitly on their assertion of the existence of a tanker… They took no steps to verify what they were asserting… any ‘mistake’ that existed was induced by their own culpable conduct.” (at p.18)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs for £3,285 as damages for breach of contract.
You can refer to the full text of the case here:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1951/79.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- How Livingstone v Evans Defines Counteroffer in Contract Law
- What Did Wakeling v Ripley [1951] Decide on Legal Intent?
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) with its precedent case
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.