Bai v Lightspeed Finance Pty Ltd

The case of Bai v Lightspeed Finance Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the borrower, Bai, and the lender, Lightspeed Finance Pty Ltd. Bai borrowed money from Lightspeed, and the parties had an initial agreement. Subsequently, Lightspeed provided a form of loan deed to Bai's solicitor. The form was signed by Lightspeed but not by Bai. Bai argued that Lightspeed's provision of the form of loan deed was an offer, which Bai accepted by signing the form and returning it. The court was required to decide if Bai's conduct constituted an acceptance of the offer and if the earlier agreement was replaced by the subsequent agreement. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was an implied agreement to terminate the earlier agreement and if there was any misrepresentation regarding the supplanting of the earlier agreement. Finally, the court had to consider if Bai's solicitor breached its duty of care by failing to follow or verify instructions, causing Bai to enter into the earlier agreement.

The court found that the provision of the form of loan deed by Lightspeed was an offer, which Bai accepted by signing and returning the form. This was deemed a valid acceptance under contract law. The court also found that the earlier agreement was supplanted by the subsequent agreement, as there was an implied agreement to terminate the earlier agreement. Bai's solicitor was found not to have breached its duty of care, as there was no evidence that Bai suffered any loss by entering into the earlier agreement. Regarding the misrepresentation, the court found that there was no representation by Bai that the subsequent agreement would not supplant the earlier agreement, and Lightspeed was not induced to enter into the subsequent agreement based on any such representation.

The court ordered that the subsequent agreement between Bai and Lightspeed would prevail, effectively terminating the earlier agreement. The court also found that Bai's solicitor did not breach its duty of care. The final order was that Lightspeed was entitled to the repayment of the loan under the terms of the subsequent agreement.