Case study on Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

1           Introduction of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Australian Woolen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth is a leading case of Australia about the offer, acceptance, and rise conditions of the legally binding contract. The case was first raised in1939 during the war and the Australian government introduced a system to control the price of wool and sale price of Woolen garments of Australia. The Australian Woolen Mills could sell the goods according to the rules fixed by Commonwealth prices Commissioner under 20 September 1948. In 1946, the Australian Government introduced a subsidy for the wool purchasing and manufacturing of garments that are produced for the local consumption. Later on, in 1948, the government of Australia discontinued the process of subsidy and left Australian Woollen Mills with only substantial amount and subsidy was not paid to them (Jade. io, 1954). As a result, Australian Woolen Mills sued the government for breaching the contract and in response, the government denied the liability of paying subsidy on the grounds because there was no legal binding contract between the government and Australian Woolen Mills (Lawcasesummaries. com, 2020). The prime objective of the present work is to analyze the case and identify facts, issues, and decision of High Court of Australia.

1.1     Case Overview of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

The case turned as an issue of consideration because according to the scheme of government, they encouraged the purchase of Wool in the aftermath of the Second World War. The government first offered the subsidy to the manufacturers and encouraged to purchase the wool for the common use of local manufacturers. The plaintiff purchased wool and used according to their requirement and purpose. In the end, they received the payments and the government suddenly stopped all the payments. The claim of the plaintiff was for the subsidy and they argued that the government made a contract to pay all the subsidy. The key issues in the case were whether the buying of wool consideration was with any kind of the promise of subsidy or merely there was any necessary condition for the entitlement of subsidiary (Chetwin, Graw, & Tiong, 2006). Later on, the further issue arose regarding the condition of whether or not there was any intention to develop a legal relation. Plaintiff failed in the case. The court held under the joint judgment and there was no consideration of buying the wool. The condition was merely under the precedent to the entitlement of the subsidy. The court further identified that there was no particular intention to create a legal relation. The privacy council provided the Australian Woolen Mills with a special leave for the appeal. The appeal was then dismissed, and high court was agreeing that there was no contract between Australian Woolen Mills and the government to pay a subsidy. 

1.2         Case details of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

All the essential case detailed are provided in table 1 below,

Table 1: Case Details

2           Statement of relevant fact and legal issues
2.1         Facts

The government of Australia, in June 1946 announced that they would pay a suitable subsidy to the wool manufacturers and those who purchase wool to manufacture wool products after 30 June 1946. Plaintiff purchased wool and manufactured woollen items after 1946 and between the time of 1946 to 1948. As a result, they received some amount as a subsidy because it was under the claim of government (Dober, 2012). 

2.2         Plaintiff arguments of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

In the court, their arguments were as following,

1.      There was duly signed contract between the government and Australian Woolen Mills. According to the contract, the commonwealth promised to pay a subsidy if they purchase wool for the domestic usage and manufacture wool products for the locals.

2.      The plaintiff stepped forward and purchased wool under the agreement with the government.

2.3         High court of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

The high court under the head of Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ concluded that there was no legal contract between the government and Australian Woolen Mils. Under the statement of Commonwealth, the company was not offered to purchase more wool (Netk. net. au, 2018). The court stated that

“it is necessary, … that it should be made to appear that the statement or announcement which is relied on as a promise [here the subsidy statement] was offered as consideration for the doing of the act and that the act [buying and using the wool as directed] was done in consideration of a potential promise inherent in the statement or announcement.”

Based on the facts and evidence, the High Court ruled that there was no legal contract and binding between the government of Australia and Australian Woolen Mills. The government had done a statement based on government policy and no offer could be accepted. The court stated that

"what is alleged to be an offer should have been intended to give rise, on the doing of the act, to an obligation ... In the absence of such an intention, actual or imputed, and alleged "offer" cannot lead to a contract: there is, indeed, in such a case no true "offer".

Purchasing more wool was not a condition of the promise that the government made. The government was not entitled to pay any subsidy for the purchased wool. In the case, the high court also noticed that there was no significant offer, invitation, and request made by the government to the company to purchase anything new. Neither government suggested to purchase more wool products and items, nor they enforced the company to have further purchase of wool. The High Court concluded that the company was intended to introduce new legal contracts but instead of that, it was only an offer by the government to pay subsidy, so the wool industry grows properly without getting the impact of the second world war. It was not a legal contract but more of that it was an offer that was introduced to give rise to the wool industry without facing many issues of world war (Australiancontractlaw. com, 2020).

3           Own idea of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

In the case of contracts, they are commonly constituted by the acceptance of the offer and signed by two parties. Incase of promise by one company or one side, there is no contract and legal bounding on the promise. The contracts are often established and appear in a clear format. The promise is offered as a consideration to doing any act and it could have a potential difference in the companies. In the present case, the appraisement system was introduced by the Australian government in the wartime to upraise the wool industry. During 1946, it was a common practice to auction wool. Due to world war, the woollen industry of Australia was supposed to get the worst outcomes. Therefore, the Australian government introduce a policy to provide wool companies with some subsidy. The offer was a promise and later it was fulfilled by the government (Chetwin, Graw, & Tiong, 2006).

In the promise, it was clearly stated that subsidies would not be provided on the wool that was purchased after 30 July 1946. The main purpose was to strengthen and support the wool industry after the Christmas close. Considering all the situations and evidence along with the decision of the court, it is evident that Australian Woolen Mills were accusing the Commonwealth. The claim of Commonwealth was they paid all dues to the company and there was nothing left to be paid. Commonwealth was not underpayment according to the stated evidence. The manufacturer purchased wool after the due date mentioned in the announcement. There was no strong foundation of the claim and all the sum of money was received by the company. The question is here about the subsidies that if they were payable or not. The constitution was not duly signed by both parties and the government paid all subsidy based on facts. Commonwealth justified all the facts and evidence. Therefore, the decision of the high court was based on the facts and figures (Chetwin, Graw, & Tiong, 2006).

 The plaintiff company was having a business of wool from many years and they carried all the business for manufacturing the wool items. The consumption rate of wool products is high in Australia therefore the company was not facing any downtime. The Australian Woolen Mils are buying and selling wool fibre woollen materials. Besides that, woollen companies are selling piece goods and fabrics of all kinds. They are not only dealing with woollen products. According to the analysis of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424, it can be concluded that claim of the company was based on wrong grounds and Commonwealth was not liable to pay any subsidy for new items purchased by the company (Chetwin, Graw, & Tiong, 2006; Australiancontractlaw. com, 2020).

4           Logical analysis of the case
4.1         Material Facts of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

1.      The government of Australia announced that for this year they would offer a subsidy to those who are dealing with wool. The announcement was made on 30 June 1946 and the main purpose was to stimulate the wool sector in Australia.

2.      The subsidy scheme was to purchase domestic wool and subsidy at a certain rate was allowed to be given to the manufacturers to manufacture and supply products at low prices.

3.      Australian Woolen Mills exceeded the statement stockpile of the purchased wool and it was required to pay the subsidiary fee.

4.      The next announcement was about the discontinuity of policy in 1948, two years later than the first announcement.

5.      Australian Woolen Mills sued the government for breaching of the contract. They claimed they bought the wool and still they were not paid with the subsidy from the government.  

6.      The company was paid with subsidy and now they were seeking to compensate with the amount by the government (Lawcasesummaries. com, 2020).

4.2         Issues of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

In the case, two major questions are highlighted below,

1.      If there was a contract between Commonwealth and Australian Woolen Mills?

2.      Was there any offer and how Australian Woolen Mills accepted the offer of government?

4.3         Held of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

1.      Considering the facts and evidence, there was no particular offer made by the government that Australian Woollen Mills have accepted to make the promise as a contract with the Commonwealth.

2.      The announcement was an offer and policy to pay wool subsidy but there was no contractual offer made by the government. The government was not in any legal relations rather it was a scheme introduced by the government to support and promote the wool industry of Australia (Australiancontractlaw. com, 2020).

3.      If there was no contract, then how the company can sue the government for contract breaching. Therefore, the government have not breached any legal relationship of the company.

4.4         High court decision of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

The case was held in the high court of Australia and judges decided that there was no contract breaching. The court raised the question that what was alleged to be an offer is not supposed to be a contract between the government and the company. if there was no such intention then the alleged offer cannot be considered as a legal contract. The high court of Australia concluded that the case was not under any contract and based on the offer of government, the Commonwealth of Australia is not required to pay any subsidy to Australian Woolen Mills (Latrobe. rl. talis. com, 2020). 

5           Analysis of the judgement of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

During the woollen season, 1946 – 1947 the companies were under the agreement for time to time purchase of wool in different series of auction. Domestic consumption was not affected by the second world war. Still, Australian Wool Realization Commission determined the amount of subsidy for all the purchased wool. The calculated subsidy was expected to be the sum of 6, 364 euros and the sum was paid by the Commonwealth. The subsidy was calculated on the basis of the basic price of wool under the domestic consumption and market price of the wool on average. Later on, the plaintiff stated that the calculation of the wool subsidy was supposed to be based on the auction amount and difference between the basic cost as well as the actual price paid by the companies. The money exacted by the defendant that was government and the plaintiff that was Australian Woolen Mills was considered as subsidy (Gibson & Fraser, 2013).

The difference between the calculated money was 2,121 euros. The plaintiff sued the government (defendant) for the payable money to pay back in respect to the subsidies that were due. The high court calculated and determined that amount of subsidy that was payable and the amount of money paid to the companies. The analysis revealed that the company claimed on the wool that was in the stocks (Gibson & Fraser, 2013).  

6           Conclusion of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Australian woollenmillspty LTD V the Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424 is about the legal conflict between the Australian government and Australian Woolen Mills. The issue was based on the announcement made by the government to pay a subsidy to support the woollen industry. The legal issue was to determine whether Australian Woolen Mill purchased the wool and it was under the consideration that whether the government made a promise to pay the subsidies or it was a contract between two parties. The High Court of Australia concluded that it was a promise and the government offered the companies to pay subsidy and the main purpose was to support the wool industry. there was no contract between the parties therefore, the government was not supposed to pay more subsidy on wool that was purchased later.

Walton store (Interstate) LTD V Maher ( 1998) HCA 7

Introduction of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Walton store (Interstate) LTD V Maher ( 1998) HCA 7 is a leading case of Australian contract law and high court of Australia decided that estoppel could be a cause of action in the certain type of circumstances. the case is about the issues regarding property. Maher owned the property and a constructed building on it in Nowra. In the case, he negotiated with the department store known as Walton Stores that was under the control of Bond Corporations. The negotiation was about the lease of land. His main concern was to demolish the previous building and then build a new erected one on the land. Therefore, he asked Waltons Stores to lease the land. In reliance, the contract between two parties was completed therefore Maher demolished the building and started a new one. The contract was not completed in actual because Waltons Stores did not sign the lease. The Solicitors of Waltons did not completed the work and allowed Maher to remain under the impression that the deal was completed and signed by them. The aim of present work is to analyze the facts, issues, judgement and decision of the High Court of Australia. The main issue is that the contract was not completed, and owner demolished the building to start new one.

Case summary of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Walton negotiated with Maher for the lease for the property on by Maher. The part is considered that Maher would demolish an existing relationship and erect a new one with Walton would occupy with the agreement that reached on terms and conditions. Solicitor of Walton sent a draft list to Maher's solicitors in October and required some changes to discuss in the case. The Division of Lease was then sent to Walton by Maher in November. Maher informed Walton that there is different demolition that is started and it was therefore significant to final the least quickly. After this month, Walton started to have different kind of reservation about the leaves and instructed the far solicitor to go slow (Harris, 2014).

After this month, Walton building work is completed approximately 40% of Walton informed my head that he did not wish to continue with this project and may have brought action to enforce the agreement in the Court. However, the formal contract said not being exchanged and the majority was entitled to assume different kind of exchange posit mere formality for the party. Maher could depend on the promissory estoppel that extends to the representation of the promises of both parties. In Australian court of law, it would be used both as sword and shield. It will apply on different kind of promise that could cause such as:

·         Promise there makes promise.

·         Promises are encouraged to the assumption that to come into existence, that of contract to be performed.

·         Promisee relies on the determinant

·         There is uncontestable contract of promises; conduct and promise ignore the promise.

Own idea of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

In own perception, it is determinant that the contract was established between both the parties. How it is liability of both parties such as Walton and model to fulfill the requirements of the contract. According to an idea, the Walton is conducting misbehave with Maher and libel to fulfill the requirement of the contract within the time to gain that diligence certainty of the contract. Direct change is must make guarantee from various to make in and support the presumptions of the agreement that will proceed with the presence of the exhibition of lawful commitment of the agreement. Promising must depend on the determinant of the agreement. It ought to be oblivious, succinct, capable and having respect with the proper quest direct for the guarantee are to be disregarded and satisfy the necessity of the agreement. Value of the agreement to awards diverse sort of alleviation it would be unprecedented, sizable agreement and guarantees part ought to be disregarded in the presumptions (Silink, 2015).

Logical analysis of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Walter negotiated for someone with them at Maher and grant of lease over property on by the Maher. It would consideration on the market and demolishes the existing building an erect a new one for Walton to occupy the situation. Walton required the plants that are prepared to fulfill the needs of the agreement that reached on the terms and conditions. Solitaire for Walton sent off to the solicitor of Maher on the 21^st October for some changes that are discussed and accepted by Walton. The changes in the list were sent by mile to Walton on the new member and demolition of the work is commands to with the important conclusion of released quickly before Christmas shutdown.

The first project meant is held of Maher and held her the next trial in the court judgment. The Court of Appeal is held in the favor of Maher and Walton hearing the districts for the next hearing. Wilson held the contract between the parties and learns about the demolition on the contractor. However, it was entitled to assume that exchange was a mere in the formality to fulfill in the contract. Promise it is probable expand to represent the promise to fulfill the conduct of the future contract for the non contractual promise will be enforceable. Direct reform is must make promise from different to create in and encourage the assumptions of the contract that will continue with the existence of the performance of legal obligation of the contract. Promising must rely on the determinant of the contract. It should be unconscious, concise, able and having regard with the formal search conduct for the promise are to be ignored and fulfill the requirement of the contract. Equity of the contract to grants different kind of relief it would be uncommon, sizable contract and promises part should be ignored in the assumptions.

Analysis of judgement of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

This is meant of the High Court held that to avoid the different kinds of transactions with Walton’s unconsciousable behavior Walton was stopped them from denying the contractor. There were two additional elements that were made by Walton’s conducted, such as element of urgency and Maher executed and forwarded on 11/11 and assume that execution of the liabilities by Walton was a formality. There are difference between contract and equity created by is purple and obligation is created by the agreement of the parties and it was acquitted by the estoppels may be imposed on the different kind of agreement by each party (Campbell, 2013).

A contractual liability must be supported with the configuration and created by the different circumstances to express its implication on them. Main element that creates its estoppels according to them says the implementation of the unconsciousable conduct of contractor. The objective open civil guard to make the promise that is binding by on the equity to. Need the preserve of doctor and offer consideration that required by the parties. There is difficulty behind the limitation of the principle so that it could be implies own different forms is to suspend the existing drives. If a promise by one party is not to enforce an existing right against the other party, the equitable right to 1^st party is fulfillment the promise. That’s why other party could not deny the same protection in that similar for a conditions of the promise to intent in their legal rights. The next review of the rhino from mysteries to quality presents there to doctrine expands the enforcement of consideration of promises to get the different aspects of the basic assumptions underlying the transaction between different parties of unconscionable.

The judgment was made according to the terms and conditions of the Australian law that is binding on the parties’ making agreements on such conditions. The legal issue was to determine the liability of Walton and the whole pill according to the requirement of Maher. The contract was presented with the objective of the work to analyze the facts and the issues of the judgment according to the per quart low of Australia. The judgment is based on the spread in law and in the favor of Maher in light of Australian court of law.

If the party is failure to fulfill the promise, it does not pull the amount of promissory estoppels into the performance of the play the difference test data. There are different kinds of creation to encourage the one party forest or put in the other parties. For the situation, he haggled with the retail chain known as Walton Stores that was heavily influenced by Bond Corporations. The exchange was about the rent of land. His principle concern was to crush the past structure and afterward assemble another raised one on the land. In this manner, he asked Waltons Stores to rent the land. In dependence, the agreement between two gatherings was finished in this manner Maher wrecked the structure and began another one.

The judgment based on the member of High Court agreed with the terms that there is no implied term on the contract. Even if there could be supposed to turn on the requirement based of business efficiency to our contractor, it must be clear to the all parties too agreed with the term and in the mind of the contractors. As a result, there was no term that could be employed on the obvious matter of the contract with the discussing criteria of implication of terms and conditions through the court.

The agreement was not finished in real since Walton Stores didn't sign the rent. The Solicitors of Walton didn't finish the work and permitted Maher to stay under the feeling that the arrangement was finished and marked by them. The point of present work is to dissect the realities, issues, judgment and choice of the High Court of Australia. Consideration and contract will come into existence and promise will be performed by the 2^nd party that relies on different kinds of assumptions and the conditions on judgment that was done by Brennan J, Deane J and Gaudron J gave concurring judging authorities (Mathias, 2012).

Conclusion of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

The case is concluded that Walton was under the obligation and to fulfill the liability with the matter with the reasonable time, and you certainly certainty of the transaction. The other party, such as Maher is not in the continuous situation such as Walton has estopped from retreating from the implied promise to fulfill. Walton Vs Maher is about the case of liabilities on libel by Walton and not performing to the mile it was based on the conflict that Walton was not intended to work in the contract and want to breach the contract. The legal issue was to determine the liability of Walton and the whole pill according to the requirement of Maher. The contract was presented with the objective of the work to analyze the facts and the issues of the judgment according to the per quart low of Australia. The judgment is based on the spread in law and in the favor of Maher in light of Australian court of law.

The primary venture implied is held of Maher and held her the following preliminary in the court judgment. The Court of Appeal is held in the kindness of Maher and Walton hearings the locale for the following hearing. Wilson held the agreement between the gatherings and finds out about the destruction on the temporary worker. In any case, it was qualified for expect that trade was a negligible in the convention to satisfy in the agreement. Guarantee it is likely grow to speak to the guarantee to satisfy the lead of things to come contract for the non legally binding guarantee will be enforceable. Direct change is must make guarantee from various to make in and empower the presumptions of the agreement that will proceed with the presence of the presentation of lawful commitment of the agreement.

Codelfa construction PTY LTD V State rail Authority of NSW( 1982)HCA 24

References  of Australian woollen mils pty LTD V The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Australiancontractlaw. com. (2020). Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth. Retrieved from www.australiancontractlaw.com: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/awm.html

Campbell, J. (2013). Waltons v. Maher: History, Unconscientiousness and Remedy-The'Minimum Equity. Journal of Equity , 7 (9), 171-208.

Chetwin, M., Graw, S., & Tiong, R. (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand. Thomson Brookers.

Dober, E. (2012). Limitations on Executive Power Following Williams V Commonwealth. Qutlr , 12 (2), 491-500.

Gibson, A., & Fraser, D. (2013). Business Law 2014. Pearson Higher Education AU.

Harris, D. (2014). Equitable estoppel in the 21st Century: Revisiting the lessons of Waltons Stores V Maher. PhD diss., Murdoch University,.

Jade. io. (1954). Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth. Retrieved from jade.io: https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=64974

Latrobe. rl. talis. com. (2020). Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424. Retrieved from latrobe.rl.talis.com: https://latrobe.rl.talis.com/items/9BE34665-1C61-49DA-0278-ED5E397566DE.html

Lawcasesummaries. com. (2020). Australian Woollen Mills v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424. Retrieved from lawcasesummaries.com: https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/australian-woollen-mills-v-the-commonwealth-1954-92-clr-424/

Mathias, L. (2012). How does' equitable estoppel'apply in practice?: A case note of Waddell v Waddell.". Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia , 26 (4), 3.

Netk. net. au. (2018). Networked Knowledge - Contract Law Casenotes. Retrieved from netk.net.au: http://netk.net.au/Contract/AustralianWoollenMills.asp

Silink, A. (2015). Can Promissory Estoppel Be an Independent Source of Rights. UW Austl. L. Rev , 40.