Legal Research
Cases
Agius v Sage

Agius v Sage

Case [1999] VSC 100 1 April 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COMMERCIAL LIST Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 4313 of 1998
F4855

NORMAN J. AGIUS & ORS	Plaintiffs
v
JOHN G. SAGE & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 - 4, 9 - 11, 15 - 17 March 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 April 1999
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Agius v Sage
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 100

---

Sale of land - intention to enter into legal relations - uncertainty - agreement subject to contract - implied term - specific performance - purchaser waives terms inserted for its benefit.

Contract - note or memorandum in writing - essential terms - evidence dehors the document to identify vendor - document signed by managing director of vendor - part performance - estoppel against relying on Statute of Frauds - waiver of terms omitted from note or memorandum.
Instruments Act 1958 s.126

Estoppel - against vendor relying on Statute of Frauds - against vendor asserting uncertainty of contract - against vendor relying on non-compliance with a term - effect on specific performance.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr K.W.S. Hargrave QC with Mr K.J.A. Lyons	Kenyons
For the Defendants	Mr B.D. Bongiorno QC with Mr G.S. Clarke	Deacons Graham & James

HIS HONOUR:

By contract of sale dated 22 October 1996 the secondnamed defendant, 582 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd (“the Developer”), purchased the land at 582 - 584 St Kilda Road for the purpose of developing it as a 19 storey, 146 unit apartment block to be called Aurora. This proceeding is primarily for specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of one of the two penthouses, Unit 1902, for $500,000. The claim is made by three parties or groups of parties in the alternative: by the firstnamed plaintiff Norman Joseph Agius and his wife the secondnamed plaintiff Carmen Helen Agius; by the thirdnamed plaintiff N and C Finance and Investments Pty Ltd (“N&C”) and by the fourthnamed plaintiff Milleye Pty Ltd (“Milleye”). N&C relies upon an agreement made in February 1997 in which the purchaser is described as N & C or Nominee. Milleye claims specific performance of the February agreement as the nominee of N&C. Mr and Mrs Agius rely upon an agreement made in September 1997.

There are two defendants to the proceeding other than the Developer. The firstnamed defendant John Gerard Sage described himself as “the managing director of the Merchant Pacific Group (Loan Savers Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Horizons Funds Management Trust)". Merchant Pacific Group is and has been since 9 August 1996 a business name registered by Loan Savers Pty Ltd. The expression “Merchant Pacific Group”, it seems, was also used as a shorthand reference to a number of companies controlled by Mr Sage. He told me that there were about 20 companies within the group. These companies included the Developer and the thirdnamed defendant Merchant Pacific Pty Ltd. Although Mr Sage maintained that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Agius v Sage

Details

AGLC: Agius v Sage [1999] VSC 100
Case: [1999] VSC 100
Decision Date: 1 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Agius v Sage involved a dispute over the sale of land between the plaintiff, Agius, and the defendant, Sage. The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell a property, while the defendant argued that the agreement was uncertain and subject to a formal written contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around whether an enforceable contract existed, the necessity of essential terms in a written note or memorandum, and the impact of part performance and estoppel in relation to the Statute of Frauds. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's part performance and the defendant's conduct amounted to an estoppel against relying on the formal requirements of a written agreement.

The court examined the correspondence between the parties, including the plaintiff's signed letter of intent and the defendant's acceptance, which outlined the terms of the sale. The judge found that there was an intention to enter into legal relations, despite the agreement being subject to a formal contract. The court concluded that the essential terms of the sale were sufficiently identified in the written communication, and the evidence outside the document was sufficient to identify the vendor. The managing director's signature on the document was deemed sufficient to bind the vendor. The court also held that the plaintiff's part performance and the defendant's conduct constituted an estoppel against the defendant from relying on the Statute of Frauds and asserting uncertainty in the contract. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's waiver of certain terms inserted for its benefit precluded the defendant from relying on non-compliance with those terms as a defence.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and ordered specific performance of the agreement. The judge held that the written communication, coupled with the plaintiff's part performance, constituted a binding contract. The defendant was estopped from asserting the formal requirements of the Statute of Frauds and the absence of essential terms. The court determined that the plaintiff's waiver of certain terms further precluded the defendant from relying on non-compliance with those terms. The final order required the defendant to complete the sale of the property to the plaintiff as per the agreed terms.

Orders