_v._maher.gif)
Waltons Stores (Interstate Ltd) v. Maher
Encyclopedia
Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, 62 ALJ 110, is a leading case in Australian contract law
. The Australian High Court decided that estoppel
, in certain circumstances could be a cause of action.
for a lease of the land. They wanted an existing building to be demolished and a new one erected.
In reliance on representations made before a contract was completed, Maher demolished the building and started to erect a new one. But the contract never came to completion because Waltons Stores did not sign the lease. Waltons told their solicitors to slow the deal while they did further investigations as to whether the transaction would be good business, but allowed Maher to remain under the impression that the deal would be completed.
Mason CJ and Wilson J, ‘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.’
Australian contract law
Australian contract law is based on the inherited English contract law, with specific statutory modifications of principles in some areas. Australian law has developed through the decisions of Australian courts, especially since the 1980s, and various pieces of legislation passed by the Parliament...
. The Australian High Court decided that estoppel
Estoppel
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative...
, in certain circumstances could be a cause of action.
Facts
Maher owned some property. He was negotiating with a department store company called Waltons StoresWaltons (department store)
Waltons was an Australian department store chain, founded by Sir John Robert Walton.-History:Walton bought a menswear store in 1951, located in George St, Sydney, opposite the Queen Victoria Building and Sydney Town Hall and close to Town Hall railway station.In 1955, he formed an alliance with the...
for a lease of the land. They wanted an existing building to be demolished and a new one erected.
In reliance on representations made before a contract was completed, Maher demolished the building and started to erect a new one. But the contract never came to completion because Waltons Stores did not sign the lease. Waltons told their solicitors to slow the deal while they did further investigations as to whether the transaction would be good business, but allowed Maher to remain under the impression that the deal would be completed.
Judgment
The High Court held that to avoid detriment through Waltons' unconscionable behaviour, Waltons was estopped from denying the contract. But not only the reliance interest was protected. The award given protected the expectation interest (as if the contract had been concluded).Mason CJ and Wilson J, ‘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.’
See also
- Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
- Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 176
- Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd
- Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274
- Promissory estoppel