Contracts made over a ‘boozy’ lunch. Are they valid?
This was settled by Rees J in White Pointer Investments Pty Ltd v Creative Academy Group Pty Ltd  NSWSC 817.
In this case, the parties engaged in a ‘boozy’ and ‘lengthy’ lunch at which an agreement was reached. In summary, it was agreed that White Pointer Investments Pty Ltd (White) would source sites for childcare centres, and Creative Academy Group Pty Ltd (Creative) would pay a placement fee. As a result, White fulfilled its obligations and subsequently, Creative didn’t pay all fees owing and argued that their director was under the influence of alcohol and not in a fit state of mind to make an oral agreement.
The Court noted there was no evidence pertaining to how much alcohol was consumed at the lunch, who drank the alcohol and how the alcohol affected the parties. No invoice of the lunch was tendered, and no witnesses can attest to the consumption of alcohol. The Court also acknowledged that it had been about four and a half years since the ‘boozy’ lunch, and this may have contributed to each party’s ability to remember details.
Ultimately, the Court found an oral agreement existed due to the post-contractual conduct of the parties and little weight was given by the Court on the issue of alcohol consumption and the ability to affect the capacity for recall.
If you have any questions about this article, please get in touch with an author or any member of our Corporate team.
This information and the contents of this publication, current as at the date of publication, is general in nature to offer assistance to Cornwalls’ clients, prospective clients and stakeholders, and is for reference purposes only. It does not constitute legal or financial advice. If you are concerned about any topic covered, we recommend that you seek your own specific legal and financial advice before taking any action.