Report on the Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

Table of contents

Overview of the case 1

Catchwords 2

General information about court case 2

Court 2

Judges 2

Issues 2

Link to full case 2

Facts 2

Held 3

Elements of Promissory Estoppel 3

Quotes 3

Results from the courts 4

Decision 4

Conclusion 5

References 6

Overview of the case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

According to this case, Waltons negotiated with Maher for the rent of property. This property was owned by Maher. This shows that parties were agreed on one point and it is related to the building. This means that Maher would demolish this building and create a new one for Waltons. Moreover, this whole agreement was reached on proper terms and rents. 

After this the solicitors of Waltons were sending a draft lease to Maher’s lawyers in the coming October and some changes were discussed between them. Then after this a revised lease was sent to Waltons through lawyers of Maher. Moreover, later on in November Maher gave messaged to Waltons related to demolish of this building. Maher informed about demolishing of building so Maher has to clear the lease as quickly as possible. After this, Waltons started to have important reservations about the rent of the building and told his lawyer to go slow. Due to this in January, Maher started the building and then after this 40% of the building work has been completed. Then it was informed to Maher, you have to stop this new building. Due to this, Maher had took essential action against the agreement. According to this problem, there are majority of people thought that formal contracts had not been exchanged. Moreover, Maher was also entitled that this whole exchange was totally a simple formality. This shows that Maher should have to rely on promissory estoppel and it is extended to promises of the future conduct. According to the laws of Australia, Promissory Estoppel can be used as a sword and a shield. Moreover, it is also applied for taking proper action against the promisee. There are some points under this action is given as follows. 

It is showing that the promisor makes a promise.

Moreover, this promisor will create an assumption in the form of a contract so it will become simple to perform a promise. 

The promisee will be relied on the damage of a person. 

It is not possible for a promisor to ignore the promise according to the promisor’s contract. 

Due to this, in such problems equity occurs, because it is not possible for Waltons to ignore these assumptions. According to this case, the simple exercise of legal rights was not critical. Moreover, there are about two main additional elements that made Walton’s conduct more serious for the court. 

The first element was related to the urgency and the next one is related to the Maher executed and forwarded on 11/11 and also assumed that execution was taken by Walton.

The next thing is that according to these circumstances, Waltons was totally under obligations for communicating with Maher. This communication was related to the time and certainty of the demolition of the building. It was clear that Maher will demolish the building according to the contract held between Waltons and Maher. But the result was completely opposite, the main reason was that it was retreating Walton to complete the promise. 

Catchwords of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

There are also some important catch words

Estoppel, Equity, Common law, Exchange of parts requisite to concluded agreement, Negotiation for lease, terms agreed but parts not exchanged, Act by owner to determent in that belief, Conduct of proposes tenant leading owner to believe exchange would occur, it is related to Conveyancing Act 1919 (N.S.W), s, 54A(1). 

General information about court case 

Court 

High Court of Australia 

Judges of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

Mason CJ, Deane J, Gaudron J, Brennan J, and Wilson J. 

Issues 

Promissory Estoppel 

Link to full case 

AusLII

 Facts of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

The main facts of the case are given below

The first fact is that this building property was owned by Maher and it is located in Nowra, New South Wales Australia. 

The next fact is that Maher was negotiating with Waltons Store for the rent. But on the other hand, Walton stores wanted to demolish the existing building and create a new building in that area. 

Moreover, another fact was that Maher was relaying on these representation mentioned on the contract. Walton stores can demolished the building and started a new one.

There was a lot of problems present in negotiation between Maher and Waltons. Due to this no contract was signed between these parties. 

On the other hand, Waltons told his lawyers about the deal and asked them to slow this deal. Moreover he also allowed Maher to continue to believe that this deal may be struck due to some problems. 

Then after this Waltons called of the whole deal. The fact was showing that Maher started to construct the new building. This means Maher has to enforce this agreement because Waltons was making a huge mistake. 

According to this case, both Waltons and Maher negotiated with each other for some months for granting lease over the property. It was showing that this building was owned by Maher and he would also demolish that building and created a new one for Walton to occupy. This whole agreement was held between them on terms and rent. Due to this, on 21st October, the lawyers of Waltons were involved in sending draft lease to Maher’s lawyers and some changes were discussed between them. All of these changes were accepted by Walton. Moreover, after some time Maher was also sent a revised lease with some amendments to Waltons. It contains some important parameters of the lease. Moreover, after this in the early November Maher also informed Waltons about the demolition work and it has been started. Due to this it was extremely important for Waltons to conclude all leases before Christmas Shutdown. But it can be noted Waltons had some reservations in the last part of the month. Moreover, Waltons also gave proper instructions to his lawyers to go slow. Then after this, in the start of January Maher started the new building but after some time Waltons don’t wanted to proceed further. Overall, 40% of the building work has been completed. Due to this Maher had to take actions against Waltons. 

Held of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

This case was held in high court of Australia but before that there are a lot of high court were held through the help of formal and informal contracts. It can be noted that this contract was not completed between these parties. On the other hand, Maher was permitted to believe on these formal contracts. It is showing that these contracts were filled of formalities and other parts. Moreover, Maher was relied on promissory estoppel. This is because in Australia it is playing a role of sword and shied for the promisor. 

Elements of Promissory Estoppel 

According to the facts, there are some important elements of the promissory Estoppel. 

The first one is related to the promise. It is showing that promisor has to make a promise. Moreover, promisor can easily create and allow any assumption related to the promise. This contract will be based on the promise made by these parties. The next element is that promisee will relies on its loss but it is not good for the promisor to ignore that promise. If he was not able to complete the promise then he had to pay the price (Linda Mulcahy, 2004). 

Quotes 

There is only one important Quote taken from the hiring of the court and it is related to the enforcement of the voluntary promises. 

“The doctrine extends to the enforcement of voluntary promises on the footing that a departure from the basic assumptions underlying the transaction between the parties must be unconscionable.  As failure to fulfil a promise does not of itself amount to unconscionable conduct, mere reliance on an executory promise to do something, resulting in the promise changing his position or suffering detriment, does not bring promissory estoppel into play.  Something more would be required …this may be found, if at all, in the creation or encouragement by the party estopped in the other party of an assumption that a contract will come into existence or a promise will be performed and that the other party relied on that assumption to his detriment to the knowledge of the first party…”

(Mason C), Wilson] at 406)

Results from the courts

The trial judge was in the favour of Maher. Moreover, the court of appeal was also held in the favour of Maher. Moreover, in high court there are some remarks given by the chief Justice Mason and Justice Wilson about the given scenario. 

The first point was related to the exchange of contract. This shows that Maher has no belief that these contracts may be exchanged when they are settled on demolition. However, the exchange of contracts was a simple formality. Moreover, it can be noted that promissory estoppel would be extend to representations for the future conduct. There is not a single reason on which they are able to preclude departure from the representation. This contract was changes from the non-contractual promise towards the enforceable in the direct form. 

It is also showing that from non-contractual promise it will be applied directly on the promisee. All important points related to the promissory estoppel was analysed for making critical decision in favour of the both parties. Moreover, there is need to apply equity relief to both parties. This is because it will be unfair conduct on the promisor’s part to ignore all assumptions related to the contract. Due to this case, the promissory estoppel is considered as an important part of this issue. 

Decision of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

It is showing that the issue was present in the case, held according to the lights of facts. Moreover, the appellant is also estopped from denying the core existence of the contract. Due to this fact, Maher has to take critical actions against Walton’s stores. This is because Waltons was not working according to the case. 

According to this case, Kearney J. was also found that the exchange of materials and other things was not according to the contract held between two parties. Moreover, these respondents were also not appealed against these findings. This shows that its correctness will become a huge issue in the court. Despite this, the existence of finding was considered as a huge issue in the court. It is also showing that the respondent of this case may be succeed at the first instance in the court of appeal. On the other hand, the primary judge of the court has found that the main appellant was estopped from denying the original contract. Due to this case, the exchange held between these two parties. According to this both of these judges were also agreed. This is because they had also found that the appellant was estopped from denying the existence of binding contract between two parties. It was also showing that if there is any justification present between the parties for finding an estoppel. Then it is depended on different course of events which was proceed with different decisions and correspondence between the lawyers of the same party (Geraint G. Howells, 2009). 

Moreover, according to this case, important discussion were made between the lawyer of two parties. Moreover, due to these discussions it is showing that the new building will be available on 5th February. Both Mr. Elvy and Roth were involved in critical conversation. Due to this the primary judge accepted the account of Mr Elvy. Due to this Mr Roth has showed some important points related to the contract. He said that he had received verbal instructions form Waltons according to this case. For that point, Dawson Waldron was sending fresh documents to Morton. and Harris. Then after this, when the letter was dispatched then Morton and Harris has to take certain actions related to the documents. 

Now after this, in the start of January, the respondents were started to build different kind of plans and products after getting approval. Moreover, the next fact is that it is not easy for the party to sustain the findings of the contract after the results. 

Moreover, the facts were also showing that Dawson and Waldron did not inform the other party on 8 November. Then the primary judge has to take certain decisions related to the contract. Overall, all the points of the decision were in the favour of Maher because Waltons was not completing his promise (WALTONS STORES (INTERSTATE) LTD. v. MAHER [1988] HCA 7; (1988) 164 CLR 387 (19 February 1988), 1988).  

Conclusion of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

Summing up all the discussion from above, it is concluded that the decision was in the favour of Maher. In this report, there is comprehensive information about the case between Maher and Waltons related to the contract of building. This property was owned by Maher. This shows that parties were agreed on one point and it is related to the building. This means that Maher would demolish this building and create a new one for Waltons. Maher informed about demolishing of building so Maher has to clear the lease as quickly as possible. After this, Waltons started to have important reservations about the rent of the building and told his lawyer to go slow. This shows that Maher should have to rely on promissory estoppel and it is extended to promises of the future conduct. According to the laws of Australia, Promissory Estoppel can be used as a sword and a shield. The next fact is that Maher was negotiating with Waltons Store for the rent. But on the other hand, Walton stores wanted to demolish the existing building and create a new building in that area. 

Due to this, on 21st October, the lawyers of Waltons were involved in sending draft lease to Maher’s lawyers and some changes were discussed between them. All of these changes were accepted by Walton. Moreover, Waltons also gave proper instructions to his lawyers to go slow. Then after this, in the start of January Maher started the new building but after some time Waltons don’t wanted to proceed further. On the other hand, the primary judge of the court has found that the main appellant was estopped from denying the original contract. Due to this case, the exchange held between these two parties. 

References of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher

Geraint G. Howells, R. S. (2009). Modernising and Harmonising Consumer Contract Law. sellier. european law publ.,.

Linda Mulcahy, J. T. (2004). Contract Law in Perspective. Psychology Press.

Martins, L. L. (2011). Organizational change and development. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization., pp. 691-728. American Psychological Association,.

Mary Keyes, T. W. (2016). Codifying Contract Law: International and Consumer Law Perspectives. Routledge.

Mulcahy, L. (2008). Contract Law in Perspective. Routledge.

Roger Blanpain, H. N. (2010). Regulation of Fixed-term Employment Contracts: A Comparative Overview. Kluwer Law International.

WALTONS STORES (INTERSTATE) LTD. v. MAHER [1988] HCA 7; (1988) 164 CLR 387 (19 February 1988), 387 (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1988).