Mcrae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation1951-0827 HCA A,[1951] HCA 79
Date1951
Year1951
CourtHigh Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
85 cases
  • Cairnsmore Holdings Pty Ltd v Bearsden Holdings Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd v MTD ACPIEngineering Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 2016
  • Natixis S.A. v Marex Financial
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 2 Octubre 2019
    ... ... also gave Marex an additional source of profit in the form of commission. Marex purchased the nickel from CHH with whom Marex also entered into a ... McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 C.L.R. 377, 408 ... That ... ...
  • Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 7 Octubre 2011
    ... ... 49 Then the Audit Commission became involved. Mr Rainey, a local resident, raised with it the issue of ... citing with approval a decision of the High Court of Australia, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 , in particular the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 Diciembre 2019
    ...(1961) 24 MLR 421; and J C Smith, “Contracts – Mistake, Frustration and Implied Terms” (1994) 110 LQR 400, amongst other pieces. 80 (1951) 84 CLR 377. 81 And see, for example, the Singapore High Court decision of Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 at [......
  • CONTRACT DAMAGES AND THE PROMISEE'S ROLE IN ITS OWN LOSS.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 42 No. 2, January 2019
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...and Kramer (n 24) 264-71. (54) For sale of goods outright, or as part of business, see, eg, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377, 411, 414 (Dixon and Fullagar JJ); Aryeh v Lawrence Kostoris & Son Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep 63, 70 (Willmer LJ); Clark v Macourt (2013)......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — SOME KEY CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...14-100 to 14-125. 24 Supra n 19. 25 See, in particular, the Australian High Court decision of McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission(1951) 84 CLR 377. 26 See eg, C J Slade, “The Myth of Mistake in the English Law of Contract”(1954) 70 LQR 385; P S Atiyah, “Couturier v Hastie and the Sale......
  • Prioritising Proof over Speculation: Resolving the Prospective Inability Problem in Contract Damages
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 86-4, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...recouped its expenditure, and the facts in the High Court of Australia’searlier decision in McRae vCommonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377, where itwas impossible to know what would have happened had the breach not occurred because thepromised tanker never existed.141 The presen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT