Mcrae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation1951-0827 HCA A,[1951] HCA 79
Date1951
Year1951
CourtHigh Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
86 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 January 2016
  • Natixis S.A. v Marex Financial
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 2 October 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 October 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 ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December - January 2019
    • 1 December 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 January 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 December 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 July 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......