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

This case study analyzes the landmark case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988), focusing on the legal principles and court outcomes. The case involves negotiations between Waltons Stores and Maher concerning a property lease, where Maher demolished an existing building based on a promise. The analysis explores the doctrine of promissory estoppel, highlighting the significance of unconscionable conduct in the absence of a formal contract. The document examines the arguments presented by both parties, including the plaintiff's claim for damages and the defendant's denial due to the lack of an enforceable contract. The court's decision, which upheld the application of promissory estoppel, is discussed, emphasizing the role of unconscionable conduct in the outcome. The assignment includes relevant references to contract law texts and legal publications.

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