Caratti v Zhou

[2024] WASCA 39

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Guarantee and indemnity
3. › Construction of deed of guarantee
4. › Whether guarantee secured performance of contractual obligation on default or payment of amount irrespective of breach
5. › Whether guarantee created primary or secondary obligation
6. › Distinction between guarantee of performance and guarantee of payment
1. Contract
2. › Guarantee and indemnity
3. › Demand as condition precedent to liability
4. › Validity of demand
5. › Whether demand misstating amount payable was valid demand
6. › Whether demand must specify correct amount
1. Contract
2. › Construction of commercial contracts
3. › Related agreements
4. › Interpretation of guarantee in context of underlying investment agreement
5. › Whether description of instrument as 'guarantee' determinative of legal effect

Quick Take

Where a guarantee secures payment of a defined amount rather than performance of an obligation, the guarantor's liability may not depend on breach by the principal debtor, and a demand misstating the amount does not invalidate the demand if it sufficiently identifies the guaranteed obligation.

Case Details

Citation[2024] WASCA 39

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by2

2025Reliance Capital Pty Ltd v Caratti [No 11]WASC 454
2024Commonwealth Bank of Australia v MoirWASC 319

Relies on

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in