QLDQCA
Hennessey Glass & Aluminium P/L v Watpac Australia P/L [2002] QCA 24
[2002] QCA 24
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-02-15|Before: de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Ambrose JJoint reasons for judgment of de, Jersey CJ and Davies JA, separate reasons of Ambrose J, concurring as to the, orders made.
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
Court of Appeal (Qld)
Decision date
2002-02-15
Before
de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Ambrose JJoint reasons for judgment of de, Jersey CJ and Davies JA, separate reasons of Ambrose J, concurring as to the
Catchwords
- CONTRACTS–GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND
- INTERPRETATION – CUSTOM AND USAGE – INCORPORATION INTO
- CONTRACT – KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH PARTIES – appeal against decision of
- District Court
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CONTRACTS–GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION ANDINTERPRETATION – CUSTOM AND USAGE – INCORPORATION INTOCONTRACT – KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH PARTIES – appeal against decision ofDistrict Courtjudge – where building contract for installation of doorsand windows – dispute over terms of sub-contract – whetherthe termsof a sub-contract had been correctly construed – construction andinterpretation of the “scope of works”clause – whethersubject doors were required to be framed or unframed – whether therespondent had to supply unframedglass doors pursuant to the sub-contract– whether trial judge proceeded on an erroneous factual basis that thesub-contractprovided that the subject doors were to beframed.INTERPRETATION – ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE INRELATION TO INSTRUMENTS – WHEN EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MEANINGOFTERMS – where ambiguity in contract – whether Court should resort to