Jessop v McInteer

[2003] QCA 170

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Construction and interpretation
3. › Parol evidence rule
4. › Whether written agreement contained all terms of parties' bargain
5. › Admissibility of extrinsic evidence of oral terms
6. › Whether deposit requirement survived written agreement
1. Contract
2. › Construction and interpretation
3. › Exclusive agency or distributorship
4. › Whether agreement conferred exclusive or sole agency
5. › Ambiguity resolved against drafter
6. › Objective intention of parties
1. Contract
2. › Breach
3. › Termination
4. › Whether failure to complete purchase constituted breach entitling termination
5. › Whether return of deposits constituted waiver of repudiatory breach
6. › Whether anticipatory breach accepted
1. Contract
2. › Damages
3. › Loss of commercial opportunity
4. › Measure of damages for wrongful termination of agency agreement
5. › Reliance loss and expectation loss
6. › Whether plaintiff established any recoverable loss
7. › Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Limited [1991] HCA 54

Quick Take

Where a party to a distributorship agreement returns deposits and excuses the other party from performance without reservation of rights, this conduct is inconsistent with acceptance of any repudiatory breach and precludes reliance on that breach as grounds for termination. A plaintiff claiming damages for wrongful termination of a distributorship must lead evidence establishing the number and value of sales that would have been made, not merely assert speculative sales figures. Reliance loss under Amann Aviation requires proof that expenditure was in fact incurred and was reasonable.