Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) Case Analysis

This case analysis discusses the negotiations between Waltons Stores and Maher for leasing a property, where Waltons required the existing building to be demolished and a new one constructed. After Mayer agreed, they proceeded with the demolishment and construction. However, Waltons decided not to execute the lease, leading to damages for Maher. The key issue was whether Maher could recover the damages. The analysis covers the doctrine of promissory estoppel, unconscionable conduct, and the absence of consideration. The court ruled in favor of Maher, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissing the appeal.

Waltons Stores (Interstate)
Ltd v Maher (1988)
CASE ANALYSIS

 Negotiations took place between Mayer and
Walton Stores with regards to leasing of a
property
 Walton stores required that the existing
building be demolished and a new one
constructed
 Mayer agreed for the same
Issues and Facts

 Mayer proceeded with demolishment of old
building and construction of new building
 Walton stores decided not to execute the
lease leading to damages for Maher
 Key issue is whether Maher can recover the
damages
Issues and Facts (Contd..)

 Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
 Gains significance in situations where a
contract has not been enacted but a
particular party has acted on the promise
and conduct of the promisor
 Unconscionable conduct during the ignoring
of promise
Relevant Laws and Principles

 Absence of consideration but application of
equity principle
 Imperative that the plaintiff interest would
have suffered damages
 Cannot be used as a tool for enforcement of
promise by the promisor
Relevant Laws and Principles
(Contd..)

 Plaintiff (Maher) demanded payment for
damages incurred for false promise
 Defendant (Walton Stores) denied payment
of damages owing to absence of
enforceable contract
 Court highlighted that for application of
promissory estoppel, presence of
unconscionable conduct was necessary
Arguments and Analysis

 Plaintiff informed the defendant with
regards to demolition of the existing
building
 Defendant was non-committal about lease
agreement but did not communicate the
same to the plaintiff
 Unconscionable conduct on part of
defendant since plaintiff continued to act in
belief
Arguments and Analysis
(Contd..)

 Court upheld the decision of the Court of
Appeal and dismissed the appeal
 Ruled that unconscionable conduct was
present on the part of defendant
 Held that doctrine of promissory estoppel
would be applicable for relief to plaintiff
Conclusion and Court
Outcome

 Andrews, N. (2011) Contract Law 3rd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Carter, J. (2012) Contract Act in Australia. 3rd ed. Sydney:
LexisNexis Publications.
 Davenport, S. and Parker, D. (2014) Business and Law in
Australia 2nd ed.. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.
 Gibson, A. and Fraser, D. (2014) Business Law. 8th ed.
Sydney: Pearson Publications.
 McKendrick, E. (2013) Contract Law 5th ed. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
 Paterson, J. Robertson, A. and Duke, A. (2015) Principles of
Contract Law 5th ed. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.
 Taylor, R. and Taylor, D. (2015) Contract Law. 5th ed. London:
Oxford University Press
References