Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission

332 words (1 pages) Case Summary

4th Oct 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): Australian Law

Legal Case Summary

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377

Contract Law – Australia – Common Mistake – Performance – Mistake – Subject Matter – Damages


The complainant, McRae, won a tender from the defendants, Commonwealth Disposals Commission, to retrieve an oil tanker that was on Jourmaund Reef near Samarai. However, when the complainant went to the location, after laying out significant expenses for the salvage, they discovered that in fact there was no oil tanker. The Commonwealth Disposals Commission had only heard that there was an oil tanker there from gossip. They later learned that it was not.


At first instance, it was held that there was no contract between the complainant and the defendant. However, this decision was appealed by McRae. The complainant sought damages from the defendant for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation of the oil tanker and for damages since they did not disclose the information about the oil tanker when it came to their knowledge that it did not exist. The defendants argued that they had no liability to pay damages for breach of contract, as it was void by common mistake that the oil tanker did not exist. The issue in this case was whether the complainant could recover damages and if the contract could be void by a common mistake.

Decision / Outcome

It was held that the complainant was entitled for damages from the defendant. The contract was not null and void because of a common mistake. A contract did exist between the complainant and the defendant and since this oil tanker did not exist, this was a breach of contract. Thus, the complainant was entitled to damages for breach of contract and for the purchase price amount of the oil tanker, as well as the expenses paid out for the salvage operation.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "Australian Law"

This selection of academic papers covers the legal system of Australia and contains, essays, dissertations and case summaries which may be of interest to Australian law students or those studying Australian laws from outside Australia.

Related Articles