Associated Newspaper Ltd v Bancks [1951] HCS 24; (1951) 83 CLR 322

 Associated Newspaper Ltd v Bancks [1951]  HCS 24; (1951) 83 CLR 322

Facts of the Case:

A cartoonist named Bancks has agreed on a commission to make full-page weekly drawings for Associated Newspapers. 

The company has assured Bancks that his drawings and works shall be on the front page of the comic section. In return, Bancks is compensated to publish his works in the newspaper’s comic section. Despite this, numerous problems with the production and a series of unprecedented delays and paper shortages caused an error.

As a result, a certain drawing of Bancks was released and included on the 3rd page of the comics. This also means that his drawings will get less engagement and reading time in the weekly release of the comic section in the newspaper. 

The appearance of the drawing in the latter parts of the comics breaks the assurance that his works will be on the front page of the comic, which was also the reason why he agreed to do the commission let alone the contract. 

Because of this, Bancks has appealed and protested to Associated Newspapers regarding the many delays and issues but, more importantly, his works solely being included on the 3rd page of the comic. Amidst the protests and inquiry, the lack of action and response from Associated Newspapers escalated Banck’s grievances with the company. 

Given this, Bancks has decided to terminate the performance of the contract. The termination of the performance of the contract means that Bancks will no longer be affiliated with Associated Newspapers or offer any of his art services for the comic section of their newspapers.

 

Issue of the Case: 

Was the breach of contract justified by the term of having to publish Banck’s drawings on the front page of the comic section? Does it justify terminating the further performance of the contract?

The decision of the Case: The term of assurance is essential due to the nature of the contract and the course of action taken by Bancks in terminating further performance, upon the acknowledgment of his contract, is therefore justified. 

Additional Details: The court said (at [7]) In reference to Tramways Advertising Pty. Ltd v. Luna Park (N.S.W) Ltd. 

“test of essentiality is whether it appears from the general nature of the contract considered as a whole or from some particular term or terms, that the promise is of such importance to the promisee that he would not have entered into the contact unless he had been assured of a strict of a substantial performance of the promise, as the case may be, and that this ought to have been apparent to the promisor”