LAW480 Moot Court Problem Assignment

1. Goondiwindi Contractors Pty Ltd (GC) carries on business as a contract grain harvester. In November 2021, it was carrying out a contract to harvest wheat on a property near Croppa Creek, north of Moree. The harvesters it was using were the latest model (series 7) manufactured by Golden Sheaf Harvesters Ltd. Under an oral contract, the grower was to pay GC $330 per hour (incl. GST) for each operating harvester. The grower was to be responsible for supplying the fuel. There were two operating harvesters. The estimate was that all up it would take 100 hours to strip the crop.
2. Unfortunately, the onboard computers controlling the operations of each harvester “crashed”. The same problem afflicted both harvesters. There was an immediate need for replacement of each computer. Golden Sheaf had to fly the replacement computers under warranty from its factory near Perth, Western Australia. The manager of GC had emailed the Golden Sheaf factory stressing the urgency of installing the replacement computers. He wrote that ‘it is not only urgent for the current contract. Additionally, there is a deadline on starting the next and bigger contract. The next contract is to immediately follow on at Moree’.
3. Golden Sheaf sent two replacement computers. But they were for an earlier model (series 6) harvester. They were not compatible with the series 7 harvester models GC was using. Golden Sheaf then sent two correct replacement computers. As result of this mix-up, harvesting at Croppa Creek ceased for nearly six days. This was twice as long as the original estimate.
4. Consequently, GC suffered a loss on its harvesting contract at Croppa Creek. This was because of a 20% penalty rate reduction in the hourly rate on its two (2) harvesters. It blamed its loss of $13,200 on the breach of the warranty agreement it had with Golden Sheaf to replace the computers promptly. GC also claimed damages brought about by its inability to carry out the Moree wheat harvesting contract. As indicated in the GC manager’s e-mail, the Moree contract was to have immediately followed on from the Croppa Creek contract. It involved 200 hours of harvester operating time at $550 per hour (incl. GST). And, that was with the grower to supply fuel. It was worth $110,000 (incl. GST) to GC.
5. At first instance, the matter came on for hearing in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New England. The court held that GC was entitled to recover damages against Golden Sheaf on the grounds that they fell within the rule in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145. The assessed damages of $123,200 were for the loss of the Moree contract of $110,000 and $13,200 on the Croppa Creek contract.
6. Golden Sheaf Harvesters Ltd has filed a Notice of Appeal relying upon the following grounds:
   • That the learned trial judge erred in applying the rule in Hadley v Baxendale in assessing the damages of $110,000 on loss of the Moree contract.
   • That the learned trial judge should have held that the damages in respect of the Moree contract were too remote.
   • That the learned trial judge should have followed the reasoning in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2009] 1 AC 61.

Unless otherwise stated, the laws of the State of New England are the same as for the State of New South Wales.

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back! Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects.

Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank