Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CASE BRIEF: Toll (FGCT) Pty LTD V Alphapharm Pty LTD

    Uploaded by

    Admin Che
    249 views1 page
    The High Court of Australia considered whether an exclusion clause in a document headed "Application for Credit" and signed by the defendant's agent formed part of the carriage contract between the plaintiff and defendant. While the clause aimed to exclude liability for damaged goods, the defendant argued it did not have notice of the clause. However, the Court found that where a document is intended to affect legal relations and there is no evidence of misrepresentation or other issues, a signature cancels the need for reasonable notice of the document's terms. Therefore, the exclusion clause formed part of the contract.

    Original Description:

    Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd case brief

    Original Title

    CASE BRIEF: Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The High Court of Australia considered whether an exclusion clause in a document headed "Application for Credit" and signed by the defendant's agent formed part of the carriage contract between the plaintiff and defendant. While the clause aimed to exclude liability for damaged goods, the defendant argued it did not have notice of the clause. However, the Court found that where a document is intended to affect legal relations and there is no evidence of misrepresentation or other issues, a signature cancels the need for reasonable notice of the document's terms. Therefore, the exclusion clause formed part of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    249 views1 page

    CASE BRIEF: Toll (FGCT) Pty LTD V Alphapharm Pty LTD

    Uploaded by

    Admin Che
    The High Court of Australia considered whether an exclusion clause in a document headed "Application for Credit" and signed by the defendant's agent formed part of the carriage contract between the plaintiff and defendant. While the clause aimed to exclude liability for damaged goods, the defendant argued it did not have notice of the clause. However, the Court found that where a document is intended to affect legal relations and there is no evidence of misrepresentation or other issues, a signature cancels the need for reasonable notice of the document's terms. Therefore, the exclusion clause formed part of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Name of Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd

    Case

    Citation and Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
    Court High Court of Australia

    Material
    Facts  Alphapharm purchased flu vaccine from Ebos Group Ltd
     Carriage contract was entered into between Finemores (FGCT) and
    Richard Thomas Pty Ltd, an agent for Alphapharm
     Front of relevant contractual document, which was headed
    ‘Application for Credit’ – where it was signed, read “please read
    ‘conditions of contract’ prior to signing”
     One condition was an exclusion clause protecting FGCT from liability
    in the event of damage to the vaccine during transportation (cl 6)
     The vaccine was damaged because it was destroyed at too low of a
    temperature
    Legal Issue Whether cl 6 formed part of the carriage contract thereby excluding
    Finemores from liability for the destruction of the vaccine

    Relevant The objective approach to the determination of the rights and liabilities of
    Law contracting parties; the significance to the signature of a contractual
    document.
     Case authority: Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v
    Fay: if a passenger signs, and thereby binds himself to the terms of a
    contact of carriage containing a clause exempting the carrier from
    liability… it is immaterial that the passenger did not trouble to discover
    the contents of the contract
    Application In order for those terms and conditions to be made part of the contract, it is
    of Law to the necessary for Finemores to establish it had been done what was reasonably
    Facts sufficient to give Richard notice.
    Whilst this was an exclusion clause, the effect of a signature cancels the need
    to give reasonable notice: "where a person has signed a document, which is
    intended to affect legal relations, and there is no question of
    misrepresentation, duress, mistake, or any other vitiating element, the fact
    that the person has signed the document without reading it does not put the
    other party in the position of having to show that due notice was given of its
    terms."
    Conclusion Held that cl 6 formed part of the contract

    You might also like