Bachour Enterprises Pty Ltd v Munzer

Bachour Enterprises Pty Ltd, the businessman, sold his business to Munzer, the bookkeeper. The sale was facilitated by a Heads of Agreement. The businessman later decided to retract the sale and repossess the business. Munzer sought enforcement of the Heads of Agreement, leading to litigation. The court had to decide whether the businessman was bound by the agreement, if there was any unconscionable conduct, and if there were any misrepresentations.

The court examined the legal principles around contractual construction, particularly in ascertaining the parties to the contract. The businessman argued that the document was drafted in a way that suggested he was a corporation, which was a drafting error. The court, however, considered the parties' conduct and concluded that the businessman was indeed the vendor. The court also considered if there was any unconscionable conduct by Munzer, but found that there was no special disadvantage to the businessman, despite English not being his first language. The court found no evidence of misrepresentation or non est factum.

The court determined that the businessman was bound by the Heads of Agreement. The court found that the bookkeeper did not represent that the Heads of Agreement was a licence nor did he give the businessman only one page and suggest it was the entire agreement. The court also rejected the businessman's claims of non est factum.

The court ordered Bachour Enterprises Pty Ltd to honour the terms of the Heads of Agreement. The court found that the businessman was bound by the agreement and there were no grounds for relief from the contract.