Taylor v Johnson

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation[1983] HCA 5,1983-0223 HCA B
Date1983
CourtHigh Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
161 cases
  • Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 13 Enero 2005
    ...[2004] 1 AC 919 (refd) Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 (folld) Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 (not folld) Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 (distd) Tutt v Doyle (1997) 42 NSWLR 10 (folld) Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56 (folld) William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council......
  • Lee Bee Rubber Factory Sdn Bhd and Others; Public Finance Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1994
  • Dse (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc.
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Commissioner of Taxation v Carter
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 6 Abril 2022
    ...[ 106 ER 575]. 54 Matthews v Matthews (1913) 17 CLR 8 at 20, quoting Hill v Wilson (1873) LR 8 Ch App 888 at 896. 55 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 at 429, cited in Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165 at 179–180 56 Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Competition & Consumer Law News – 5 July 2017
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 6 Julio 2017
    ...of a 'serious mistake' and did not deliberately set out to ensure that customer did not become aware of this mistake - Taylor v Johnson [1983] HCA 5; (1983) 151 CLR 422 considered and applied. TRADE PRACTICES - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Representation alleged to have been made to a ......
  • Inside track: Property & Real Estate - In the media, reports, cases and legislation
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 24 Junio 2019
    ...opportunistically sought to take advantage of it – Contract rescinded – Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed – Taylor v Johnson [1983] HCA 5; (1983) 151 CLR 422, Leibler v Air New Zealand Ltd [No 2] [1999] 1 VR 1 RW Health Partnership Pty Ltd v Lendlease Building Contractors Pty Ltd......
5 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 Diciembre 2019
    ...[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 at [58]. 82 See, for example, the oft-cited decisions of Svanosio v McNamara (1956) 96 CLR 186 and Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422, as well as John W Carter, Contract Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 6th Ed, 2013) at pp 440–456. 83 [1950] 1 KB 671. Cf John ......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 Diciembre 2004
    ...to render the contract void at common law. Alternatively, the plaintiffs urged the court to follow the decision in Taylor v Johnson(1983) 151 CLR 422, where the Australian High Court held that a unilateral mistake did not render a contract void at common law even if the twin requirements of......
  • NON-DETERMINISTIC ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS AND THE FUTURE OF THE LAW ON UNILATERAL MISTAKES IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2022, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 2022
    ...BCJ No 278 (QL) at [16]; Alcan Auto Parts Ltd v Parkland Farm Power & Equipment Ltd [1990] BCWLD 1250 at [31]. 93 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 at 428. 94 Ie, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. 95 UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016 ......
  • CONTRACT FORMATION AND MISTAKE IN CYBERSPACE — THE SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...at [125]. 146 [1950] 1 KB 671. 147 Supra n 2, at [126]. The learned judge cited the Australian High Court decision of Taylor v Johnson(1982) 45 ALR 265, and observed (at [126]) that that decision “seems to indicate that the effect of a unilateral mistake is only to render a contract unenfor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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