United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009]

Case Title: United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 177

Court: New South Wales Court of Appeal
Judgment Date: 3 July 2009
Judges: Allsop P, Ipp JA, Macfarlan JA
Lower Court Decision: 18 December 2008 (Rein J)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Case Background (United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales)

United Group Rail Services Limited (“United”) entered into a contract with Rail Corporation New South Wales (“RailCorp”) to design and build new rolling stock. The contract included a dispute resolution clause mandating that, in the event of a dispute, senior representatives from both parties must meet and undertake genuine and good faith negotiations to resolve the issue. If unresolved within 14 days, the dispute would proceed to mediation, and subsequently to arbitration if necessary.

Parties: United Group Rail Services Ltd (contractor) & Rail Corporation NSW (principal).

Contract: Design and construction of rail rolling stock.

Clause 35: Set out a detailed multi-step dispute resolution process — starting with negotiations, then expert determination, then mediation, and finally arbitration if earlier steps failed.

Legal Issues that arose

Was the obligation to undertake “genuine and good faith negotiations” (Clause 35.11(c)) enforceable or too vague?

Since the clause referred to mediation by a non-existent Australian Dispute Centre (Clause 35.11(d)), was the entire clause void?

Was the arbitration clause (Clause 35.12) severable and enforceable on its own if other parts were void?

Court’s Decision in United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales

The NSW Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge (Rein J) and confirmed that Clause 35.11(c) — requiring “genuine and good faith negotiations” — was enforceable, not void for uncertainty. It had enough legal content to be upheld.

The Court noted that good faith obligations have a longstanding presence in commercial law and are recognized in various jurisdictions. The court distinguished this case from situations where parties merely agree to negotiate future agreements, highlighting that the obligation here pertained to resolving disputes under an existing contract.

It was also established that the defective mediation clause (Clause 35.11(d)) was void for uncertainty and didn’t invalidate the rest of the dispute resolution process.

The Court upheld the arbitration clause (Clause 35.12) as valid and enforceable on its own.

Excerpts – Justice Allsop

“It is also unnecessary to consider, in the abstract, a clause providing for good faith negotiations in bringing about a commercial agreement in the first instance. The concern in the present case is the express mutual promises of the parties to undertake genuine and good faith negotiations to resolve disputes arising from performance of a fixed body of contractual rights and obligations. The difference is of great importance.” (p 69)

“As a matter of language, the phrase “genuine and good faith” in this context needs little explication: it connotes an honest and genuine approach to the task. This task, rooted as it is in the existing bargain, carries with it an honest and genuine commitment to the bargain (fidelity to the bargain) and to the process of negotiation for the designated purpose.” (p 71)

Significance of the Case

This case is a leading Australian authority affirming that an obligation to negotiate in good faith is not inherently vague or unenforceable, especially when tied to a defined contractual dispute process. Severability clauses in contracts allow removal of invalid parts without voiding the whole. Further, the court emphasized a commercial approach: contracts should be upheld if their intent and structure are reasonably clear.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd: Is Rent Reduction Enforceable?

Hamilton v Lethbridge (1912): A Legal Case Summary

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd [1967] HCA 3

Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd [1967] HCA 3; (1967) 119 CLR 460

Court: High Court of Australia
Date of Judgment: 21 March 1967
Judges: Barwick C.J. (Chief Justice), McTiernan, Taylor, Windeyer, and Owen JJ.
Areas of Law: Privity of contract, Consideration, Equitable assignment, Revocable mandate, Indemnity

Case Background (Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd)

Arthur Leopold Coulls (the deceased) entered into a contract in 1959 with O’Neil Construction Pty Ltd, granting them the right to quarry stone from his land (“Watergully”) in exchange for royalties. The contract specified that the royalties were to be paid to both Coulls and his wife, Doris Sophia Coulls, as joint tenants, with payment to continue to the surviving partner.

Coulls died later, and questions arose regarding:

1. Whether Doris Coulls had any enforceable legal right to receive royalties after her husband’s death.

2. Whether the authorization clause amounted to an assignment, a contractual promise, or a revocable mandate.

3. Whether Doris had to indemnify the estate for mortgage payments on a property (‘Hillcrest’) purchased jointly during the marriage.

4. Whether she was put to election—meaning whether she had to choose between taking under the will or keeping the royalties.

Court’s Decision in Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd

Majority View (Barwick CJ, Windeyer, and others): The royalty agreement created a joint contractual promise by the company to pay Arthur and Doris during their lifetimes, and to the survivor thereafter. Doris, having signed the document and been a named payee, was considered a party to the agreement. The clause was not merely a revocable mandate or an assignment—it created a binding obligation on the company to pay her as a joint promisee.

Enforceability: Because Doris was a joint promisee, she could enforce the contract upon Arthur’s death, despite not providing consideration herself (since the consideration came from Arthur on behalf of both).

Indemnification: Doris was not liable to indemnify or contribute the estate for the mortgage debt on Hillcrest, as it was considered a gift or advancement from Arthur to her.

Will and election: Doris was not required to elect between the will’s provisions and her right to royalties, as they were distinct and not inconsistent.

Outcome

The High Court, by majority, ruled in favour of Doris Coulls, confirming she had a legal right to the royalties as a surviving joint promisee under the contract.

Legal Significance

This case clarified Australian contract law principles on joint promisees and privity of contract. It recognized the enforceability of a contractual promise to multiple parties even if only one gave consideration.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1967/3.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Termination by Delay: The Court’s Verdict in Laurinda v Capalaba

Yango Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v First Chicago Australia Ltd [1978]

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968)

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:

https://jade.io/article/66083

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Summary of Falcke v Gray (1859)

A Case Summary of Couchman v Hill [1947]

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

A Case Summary of Couchman v Hill [1947]

Case name & citation: Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554; [1947] 1 All ER 103

Court of Appeal, England and Wales
The bench of judges: Scott, Tucker and Bucknill L.JJ.
Area of law: Exclusion clauses; terms in a contract; conditions and warranties

In Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an oral statement made prior to a contract can be incorporated as a term of the contract despite written terms suggesting otherwise.

Facts (Couchman v Hill)

The defendant auctioned a heifer, described as “unserved” (i.e., not yet used for breeding) in the catalogue. The sale conditions included a clause that lots were sold “with all faults, imperfections and errors of description,” and that auctioneers were not liable for mistakes.

Before finalizing the purchase, the buyer asked both the auctioneer and seller to confirm that the heifer was unserved, and they both assured him that it was.

However, the heifer was later found to be pregnant and died from complications related to giving birth at too young an age.

Judgment taken

The Court of Appeal held that the oral assurances provided by the auctioneer and seller were deemed to be a term of the contract. The Court recognized that the representation about the heifer being unserved was crucial to the buyer’s decision to purchase.

Reasoning

Importance of Statement: The Court considered the significance of the oral statement to the buyer. The greater the reliance placed on a statement by one party, the more likely it is that such a statement will be treated as a term of the contract.

In other words, if a statement is crucial to one party’s decision to enter into the contract, it is more likely to be considered a term of the contract. In Couchman v Hill, the Court found that the oral assurance about the heifer being unserved was integral to the buyer’s decision to enter the contract. As a result, it was incorporated into the contract as a term. This was despite the written contract terms stating that the sale was “with all faults.”

Misrepresentation vs. Term: If a statement is so crucial that the party would not have entered the contract without it, the statement may be treated as a term rather than merely a misrepresentation.

Key Takeaway (Couchman v Hill)

A statement made during the pre-contractual negotiations can be deemed a term of the contract if it was so significant that the party would not have entered into the contract if he had known it to be untrue. This case illustrates that oral assurances can be considered terms of the contract if they are crucial to the party’s decision to contract.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Summary of Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

A Summary of Bannerman v White (1861)

Case name & citation: Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CBNS 844; 142 ER 685

Court: Court of Common Pleas, England and Wales
Date of judgment: 12 June 1861
Area of law: Incorporation of terms; importance of statement

The Situation

A buyer wanted to purchase hops for making beer.

Before finalizing the deal, the buyer asked the seller if the hops had been treated with sulphur. The buyer made it clear that if the hops had been treated with sulphur, he wasn’t interested in buying them, because he couldn’t use them for making beer.

His wordings were: “If they have been treated with sulphur, I am not interested in even knowing the price of them.”

The seller wrongly assured the buyer that the hops had not been treated with sulphur.

After buying the hops, the buyer discovered that some of them had indeed been treated with sulphur and decided to cancel the contract.

The Legal Issue that arose

The seller argued that the discussion about sulphur was just part of the preliminary negotiations and not part of the actual contract.

The question was whether the statement about sulphur was a term of the contract (meaning it was a key part of what the contract promised) or just a casual comment.

The Court’s Decision in Bannerman v White

The court decided that the statement about sulphur was a term of the contract.

This is because the buyer had clearly said that the use of sulphur was very important to him, and he would not have bought the hops if he knew they were treated with sulphur.

Since the seller breached this term by selling hops that had been treated with sulphur, the buyer was right to cancel the contract.

Key Point

If a statement is very important to one of the parties and that party makes it clear that the statement is crucial to their decision, then the statement can become a term of the contract.

If the term is breached, the affected party can treat it as a breach of contract and may be entitled to remedies like rejecting the contract.

Significance (Bannerman v White)

This case illustrates that a pre-contractual statement may become a term of the contract if it is shown to be significantly important to one party. It underscores the principle that the more critical a pre-contractual statement is to one party’s decision to enter into the contract, the more likely it is to be incorporated as a term, rather than merely a representation. If a statement is treated as a term, its breach allows for remedies available for breach of contract, rather than those available for misrepresentation.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Ecay v Godfrey (1947): A Case Summary

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Birch v Paramount Estates (1956): A Brief Summary

Birch v Paramount Estates (Liverpool) Ltd (1956) 167 EG 396

Terms in a contract; representation

The case of Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd (1956) illustrates how oral representations can sometimes be incorporated into a written contract, particularly when they are fundamental to the agreement.

Facts (Birch v Paramount Estates)

A couple purchased a new house from a developer. The developers promised that the house would be “as good as the show house”. Upon completion, the house did not meet this standard. The buyers sought to hold the developers accountable for the discrepancy.

Issue

The issue was whether the promise made by the developers, which was not included in the written contract, could still be considered a binding term of the contract.

Decision of the Court in Birch v Paramount Estates

The Court of Appeal held that the promise, despite being verbal and omitted from the written contract, was so central to the agreement that it constituted a term of the contract. Thus, the developers were liable for not meeting the promised standard.

Legal Principle

This case demonstrates that even when a contract is formalized in writing, important spoken representations made during negotiations can be treated as contractual terms if they were fundamental to the agreement and relied upon by the parties. This principle is crucial in protecting parties who rely on verbal assurances that significantly influence their decision to enter into a contract.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 Court of Appeal

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Ecay v Godfrey (1947): A Case Summary

Ecay v Godfrey (1947) 80 Lloyds Rep 286

Ecay v Godfrey (1947) is a notable case in contract law that illustrates the difference between a mere statement and a term of a contract. Here is a detailed description of the case:

Facts of the Case

Parties Involved: The plaintiff (Ecay) was the buyer, and the defendant (Godfrey) was the seller of a boat.

Context: The plaintiff was interested in purchasing a boat from the defendant. During the negotiations, the defendant told the plaintiff that the boat was “sound” and in good condition.

Advice: Despite this statement, the defendant also advised the plaintiff to have the boat surveyed/checked before finalizing the purchase.

Issue in Ecay v Godfrey

The central issue in the case was whether the defendant’s statement about the boat being “sound” constituted a term of the contract or was merely a representation.

Court’s Decision

The court held that the statement made by the defendant was not a term of the contract. Instead, it was considered a mere representation.

Reasoning: The fact that the defendant advised the plaintiff to get the boat surveyed implied that the statement about the boat being “sound” was not intended to be a binding term of the contract. By suggesting a survey, the defendant indicated that the statement was not meant to be taken as a guarantee or term but rather a preliminary assertion.

Contrast with Schawel v Reade

The outcome in Ecay v Godfrey contrasts with the case of Schawel v Reade [1913]. In Schawel v Reade, a statement made about the quality of a horse was held to be a term of the contract because of its significant importance and the context in which it was made. The buyer relied on the statement, which was made emphatically and without any qualification. In contrast, in Ecay v Godfrey, the suggestion to have a survey showed that the statement about the boat’s condition was not intended to be a definitive term of the contract.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Summary of Walters v Morgan (1861)

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

A Case Summary of Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81

Schawel v Reade [1913] is a notable case in English contract law that deals with the concept of a statement becoming a contractual term. Here’s a summary of the case:

Facts (Schawel v Reade)

The plaintiff was interested in buying a horse for stud purposes from the defendant.

During the examination of the horse, the seller (defendant) made a statement to the plaintiff: “You need not look for anything: the horse is perfectly sound.”

Relying on this assurance, the plaintiff did not conduct any further inspection or checks of the horse.

The sale was completed about three weeks later.

After the purchase, the horse turned out to be unsatisfactory, and the plaintiff sought to claim damages from the seller.

Issue in Schawel v Reade

The key issue was whether the seller’s statement about the horse being “perfectly sound” constituted a term of the contract.

Judgment of the Court

The House of Lords held that the seller’s statement was indeed a term of the contract. The reasoning was based on the strength and importance of the seller’s assertion. The statement was made in a manner that implied the seller was providing a guarantee about the condition of the horse. The court concluded that the assurance was sufficiently emphatic to be considered part of the contract.

Significance

The case established that the more emphatic and significant a statement made during negotiations is, the more likely it is to be regarded as a contractual term.

A Contrasting View

In the given case of Schawel v Reade [1913], despite the three-week gap between the statement and the final contract, the Court determined it to be a term. However, in contrast, Routledge v McKay (1954) provides a different perspective on how the timing of statements impact their status as contractual terms. Here, a statement regarding the age of a motorbike being sold was not considered as a term due to the lapse of several days after it was made.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Summary of Cutter v Powell (1795)

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 Court of Appeal

The Routledge v McKay case [1954] provides an important example of how courts determine whether a statement made prior to the formation of a contract is considered a term of that contract or merely a representation. Given below are the facts and judgment.

Facts (Routledge v McKay)

In Routledge v McKay, the parties involved were private individuals negotiating the sale of a motorbike. The defendant, drawing from the registration book, informed the plaintiff that the motorbike was made in 1942. This information was provided orally during their discussions. A week later, a written contract was drawn up for the sale of the motorbike, but it did not include any reference to the motorbike’s year of manufacture. After the contract was concluded, it was discovered that the motorbike was actually a 1930 model. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the motorbike’s true age, claimed that the year of manufacture was a term of the contract and sought to enforce this as a contractual term.

Judgment

The court held that the statement regarding the motorbike’s year of manufacture was not a term of the contract. There was a significant time lapse (about a week) between the making of the statement and the conclusion of the contract. The court observed that the longer the interval between the statement and the contract, the less likely it is that the statement was intended to be a contractual term.

Furthermore, the written contract, which was concluded after the statement was made, did not mention the year of manufacture. The absence of this information in the written contract indicated that the parties did not regard the statement as a binding term.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: