In June 1946 the Commonwealth Government announced that it would pay a subsidy to manufacturers of wool who purchased and used it for local manufacture after 30 June 1946. The Plaintiff purchased and used wool for local manufacture between 1946-48 and received some payments. The Government subsequently stopped its subsidy scheme and the Plaintiff sued the Government for subsidies it claimed it was due. Rules There was no contract. The statement made by the Commonwealth was not offered as consideration for the plaintiff buying the wool.
The Court stated that in cases such as this. 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 really offered as consideration for the doing of the act, and that the act [buying and using the wool as directed] was really done In consideration of a potential promise inherent in the statement or announcement. ‘ There must be a relationship of quid pro quo between the statement and the Act. Here there was no promise offered in consideration ot doing an act.
Buying the wool was merely a condition precedent to entitlement to the subsidy. It was not intended as the consideration for a promise to pay the subsidy. In this respect the Court also noted that there was no offer or request or invitation to purchase wool or anything else suggesting that ‘payment ot subsidy and the purchase of wool were regarded as related in such a way that the one was a consideration for the other. ‘ The Court also concluded that there was no intention on the part of the government to create legal relations; it was instead a government scheme to promote industry.
In this respect the Court noted that ‘It is of the essence of contract that there Is a voluntary assumption of a legally enforceable duty. s necessary that what is alleged to be an offer should have been intended to give rise, on the doing of the act. to an obligation. Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd Plaintiff grants a company the ability to quarry stone from his property in exchange for royalties. Agreement signed by Plaintiff and his wife, although wife not menuoned in agreement title.
Agreement authorised company to pay royalties to him and his wife as Joint tenants. Plaintiff died, executor wanted to know whether the company has a contractual obligation to the wife Rules If the wife was a party to the contract, and specified as a Joint-promisee, the onsideration of her husband would have applied to her as well. Chappell ; coLtd v Nestle co Ltd [19601 AC 87 Facts Nestle ran a sales promotion whereby it persons sent in 3 chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order for 1 shilling 6d they would be sent a record.
Chappel owned the copyright In one of the records offered and disputed the right of Nestle to offer the retailed at 6 shillings 8d. Under s. of the Copyright Act 1956 retailers were protected from breach of copyright if they gave notice to the copyright holders of the ordinary retail selling price and paid them 6. 25% of this. Nestle gave notice stating the rdinary selling price was the 1 shilling 6d and three chocolate bar wrappers. The question for the court was whether the chocolate bar wrappers formed part of the consideration.
If they did it was impossible to ascertain the value they represented and therefore Nestle would not have complied with their obligation to give notice of the ordinary retail selling price. If the wrappers were a mere token or condition of sale rather than constituting consideration, then the notice would be valid and Nestle could sell the records. Rules The wrappers did form part of the consideration as the object was to increase sales nd therefore provided value.
The fact that the wrappers were simply to be thrown away did not detract from this. Therefore Chappel were granted the injunction and Nestle could not sell the records as they had not complied with the notice requirements under s. 8. In Re Casey’s Patents: Stewart v Casey (1892) In July 1887, the plaintiff and a partner registered two patents for ways of storing volatile or inflammable liquids. They then made arrangements with the defendant to take commercial advantage of the patents.
On 29 January 1889, after the defendant had done various work on the ideas, the plaintiff and his partner wrote to the efendant: We now have pleasure in stating that in consideration of your services as the practical manager in working both our patents we hereby agree to give you one third share of the patents above-mentioned, the same to take effect from this date. The plaintiffs partner died in September 1889. In December 1889, the defendant made an entry in the Patents Register stating his claim to one third ownership in the two patents.