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: