![White v Philips Electronics [2019] NSWCA 115 episode artwork](https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/production/podcast_uploaded/1884674/1884674-1559547406106-d59f94056592b.jpg)
White v Philips Electronics [2019] NSWCA 115
from Coffee and a Case Note Hosted by James d'Apice
“Get it in writing!” Relying on a conversation to vary a contract has its challenges, especially after you’ve gone down at first instance. Party A provided services to Party B – a company – pursuant to a contract. Party C guaranteed Party B’s contractual obligations. Party B failed to pay the fees owed pursuant to the contract. Party A sued for the fees and won. But by the time of that victory, Party B had gone into liquidation. This left Party C and another guarantor “on the hook” for the judgment debt. Party C appealed, saying the judge erred in her finding of what was said in a meeting, and the effect of it. Party C argued that a conversation had changed the contract despite the “entire agreement” clause. To get up, Party C would need to show that the findings made by the judge were “glaringly improbable”: [44]. He failed. On Appeal the Court found that the first instance judge was “entirely correct”: [47]. Party C’s suggestion of what happened was “inherently implausible” ([48]). Perhaps clearly, the Appeal Court was not satisfied that the finding of the first instance judge were “glaringly improbable”: [51] and [69]. Victory for Party A then. And, pursuant to a clause in the (unamended) contract, legal costs on the more generous solicitor/client basis.
Embed this episode
No transcript yet.