White SW Computer Law
Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Lawyers
Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST Victoria 8007 Australia
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 2001 Australia
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email: wcl@computerlaw.com.au Internet: http://www.computerlaw.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools



This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
contractsummary [2011/06/23 17:06]
contractsummary [2011/06/23 17:14]
Line 2: Line 2:
   * (Elements) [[contract|Contracts on the Run]]   * (Elements) [[contract|Contracts on the Run]]
   * (Interpretation) [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2004/​35.html|Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35]]    * (Interpretation) [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2004/​35.html|Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35]] 
-    * The construction ​of these letters was to be determined by what a reasonable person in the position of the contracting ​parties ​ would have understood them to mean.  +    * It is not the subjective beliefs or understandings ​of the parties about their rights and liabilities that govern their contractual relations.  
-    * That required consideration of, not only the text of the documents, but also the "surrounding circumstances" ​known to the contracting ​parties, ​as well as the "purpose and object" ​of the transaction.+    * What matters is what each party by words and conduct would have led a reasonable person in the position of the other party to believe.  
 +    * References to the common intention of the parties ​to a contract are to be understood as referring to what a reasonable person would understand by the language in which the parties have expressed their agreement.  
 +    * The meaning of the terms of a contractual document is to be determined by what a reasonable person ​would have understood them to mean.  
 +    * That, normally, requires consideration ​not only of the text, but also of the surrounding circumstances known to the parties, ​and the purpose and object of the transaction
   * (Interpretation) [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2004/​52.html|Toll (FGT) v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165]]   * (Interpretation) [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2004/​52.html|Toll (FGT) v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165]]
 +    * where a man signs a document knowing that it is a legal document relating to an interest in property, he is in general bound by the act of signature. ​
 +    * Legal instruments of various kinds take their efficacy from signature or execution. ​
 +    * Such instruments are often signed by people who have not read and understood all their terms, but who are nevertheless committed to those terms by the act of signature or execution. ​
 +    * It is that commitment which enables third parties to assume the legal efficacy of the instrument. To undermine that assumption would cause serious mischief.
 +  * Royal Botanic Gardens v South Sydney (2002) 240 CLR 45((p10]))
 +  * Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) CLR 181 ((p11))
 +  * IATA v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 151,((p53))

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au