REG GLASS PTY LTD v RIVERS LOCKING SYSTEMS PTY LTD (1968) 120 CLR 516
- Court: High Court of Australia
- The bench: Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.
- Date of judgment: 17 October 1968
- Area of law: Implied term; Breach of contract; Warranty of fitness for intended purpose
What is the case about?
The case revolves around a legal dispute involving a contract for installing a burglar-proof door in a retail shop.
Case background
The plaintiff, a men’s wear retailer, sought to install burglar-proof devices, including a door, at its new shop at 401 New South Head Road, Double Bay. The defendant, Rivers Locking Systems Pty. Ltd., was contracted to supply and fit the door according to a specific quotation. The plaintiff later sued the defendant for damages after thieves broke into the shop, claiming that the door installation was inadequate.
Trial Court Decision in Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd
The initial trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding them $10,365.53 in damages.
Appeal Court Decision
The defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales set aside the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and instead ruled in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff then appealed to the higher court, seeking to have their original judgment of $10,365.53 restored.
Judgment of the High Court in Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd
The High Court focused on the nature of the contract and whether the defendant breached it by not providing adequate protection against burglary.
The Court found that while the defendant fulfilled the express terms of the contract by fitting the door according to the agreed-upon specifications, there was an implied term that the door should provide reasonable protection against burglary.
The trial judge’s finding that the door installation was inadequate and did not provide reasonable protection was upheld.
Thus, the High Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal and held that the defendant breached the implied term of the contract by failing to ensure that the door installation provided reasonable protection against burglary. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was restored.
Quote from the case (Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd)
“Of course, the defendant did not undertake to provide a door which would defeat all endeavours of determined thieves to break in and steal, and its implied obligation was, of necessity, qualified. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to express that qualification more particularly than by using terms indicating reasonable fitness for the purpose for which the door was being installed; in particular, we are not prepared to state the qualification in terms of the time by which would-be breakers have been delayed by the door. Of course, the door as fitted would delay progress longer than would the hollow core wooden door which it replaced, but that, we think, is not enough. What the plaintiff contracted for was a door which when locked would be reasonably fit to keep would-be breakers out of the shop and the door as fitted and hung by the defendant was, as the learned trial judge found, not of that character.”
(Barwick C.J., McTiernan and Menzies JJ at p523)
Summary
In summary, the High Court emphasized the importance of implied contractual terms, particularly in situations where the express terms alone may not fully address the intended purpose of the contract, such as providing safety and security against burglary. It reinforces the expectation that contractors must not only fulfill specific contract terms but also meet reasonable standards of care and protection in their work.
References:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: