Open AccessMasters v Cameron – Again!
Author(s) -
Greg Tolhurst,
JW Carter,
Elisabeth Peden
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
victoria university of wellington law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1179-3082
pISSN - 1171-042X
DOI - 10.26686/vuwlr.v42i1.5406
Subject(s) - conflation , subject (documents) , meaning (existential) , enforcement , publishing , law , project commissioning , sociology , epistemology , political science , law and economics , philosophy , library science , computer science
Since 1986 many Australian courts have accepted that there exists a fourth category of Masters v Cameron. In 2004 the authors published an article criticising this development. That article was the subject of a reply by David McLauchlan in which he defended the fourth category on the basis that it allowed for the enforcement of an agreement to agree which he thought was a welcome development. This present article is a comment on Professor McLauchlan's paper and argues that the adoption of the fourth category has conflated an issue of construction – the meaning of 'subject to contract' when used in an agreement – with an issue of fact, namely, whether the parties intend to be bound.