Suvarna Garge (Editor)

McDonald v Attorney General

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Decided
  
20 June 1991

Judge(s) sitting
  
Holland J

Transcript(s)
  
High Court judgment

End date
  
June 20, 1991

McDonald v Attorney-General

Full case name
  
Russell John McDonald v Attorney-General

Ruling court
  
Court of Appeal of New Zealand

McDonald v Attorney-General is a cited case in New Zealand regarding satisfying the requirement in promissory estoppel for reliance by the other party.

Contents

Background

McDonald was a Southland wheat farmer. The Wheat Board had advised wheat growers that wheat grown that had a baking score would be purchased by the Board, and that such graded wheat could only be sold to the Board. In knowledge of all this McDonald expected the Board to purchase his wheat. However, due to an outbreak of wheat mould in Southland, the board found it had little demand for such wheat, and as a consequence, the Board refused to purchase his wheat.

McDonald eventually sold his wheat to other parties, at a loss, and he sued the Board for compensation.

Held

The court ruled that promissory estoppel applied here, and awarded McDonald compensation, effectively turning promissory estoppel from a shield, into a sword. Holland J stated "In converting promissory estoppel from a "shield" to a "sword" care must be taken not to extend it further into a weapon of the nature of an atomic bomb that will destroy the existing framework of legal principle by way of provision for compensation in the fields of both contract and tort"

References

McDonald v Attorney-General Wikipedia