Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd

(2018) 97 NSWLR 798; [2018] NSWCA 111

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Parties
3. › Identification of contracting parties
4. › Online end user license agreement
5. › Whether all companies in corporate group were parties to agreement
6. › Whether reference to 'Group' in EULA made holding and subsidiary companies parties
1. Contract
2. › Implied terms
3. › Terms implied in fact
4. › BP Refinery test
5. › Online poker account
6. › Whether implied term that new operator would assume liability for existing account balances of former players
7. › Whether term reasonable and equitable, necessary for business efficacy, obvious, capable of clear expression, and not contradicting express terms
1. Contract
2. › Construction
3. › Deed of release
4. › General words confined by recitals and context
5. › Whether release between parties to District Court settlement released obligations between co-defendants
1. Contract
2. › Claim in debt distinguished from claim for damages
3. › Whether plaintiff suing for balance of account required to prove loss or damage
4. › Whether release of obligation to third party provided defence to claim in debt

Quick Take

Practitioners should not rely on Gaudron J's reasoning in Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd to found a claim in unjust enrichment by a third party beneficiary of a contract; the NSWCA has held this principle is not recognised by Australian law.