Vendor and Purchaser—Contract for sale of land—Deposit required to be paid "upon the signing of this agreement"—When payable—Fundamental term—Right of rescission—Waiver and estoppel—Right to pay deposit by cheque—Post-dated cheque—Whether payment.
Decisions
Dec 14. The following written judgments were delivered: - BARWICK C.J. On 27th February 1973, the parties, the appellant as purchaser and the respondents as vendors, exchanged a signed contract for the sale and purchase of land at Byron Bay in the State of New South Wales. The purchase price was the sum of $16,000. The parties had signed a printed form of contract as approved by the Law Society and the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales. It does not appear who first signed the form. Clause 1 of this form of contract was as follows:
"The Purchaser shall upon the signing of this agreement pay as a deposit to the Vendor's Agent herein named as Stakeholder the sum of: ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,600.00) which shall vest in the Vendor upon and by virtue of completion and which shall be accounted for to the Vendor upon receipt of an order from the Purchaser or his Solicitor authorizing such payment. The deposit may be paid by cheque but if the cheque is not honoured on presentation the Purchaser shall immediately and without notice be in default under the agreement.
The balance of the purchase price shall be paid as stipulated in the First Schedule hereto. Any moneys payable to the Vendor hereunder by the Purchaser or the Agent will be paid to the Vendor's Solicitor or as he may direct in writing." (at p382)
2. The deposit was not made at the time the contract was signed by the purchaser. The vendors apparently did not know that fact when they signed the document, if they did sign it later than the purchaser. But some time in March 1973 the appellant's husband, who is a solicitor, gave to an employee of the estate agents named in the contract as vendor's agent to be stakeholder of the deposit, his "cheque" drawn on the Commercial Bank, Ballina, post-dated to 1st April 1973, for the sum of $1,600. Though this document was post-dated, there were in fact adequate funds in the drawer's account in the bank at Ballina to have met a cheque for that amount presented to the bank at the date the document was handed to the estate agents. (at p382)
3. No receipt was issued upon the handing over of this document, nor any entry made in the books of account of the estate agents. No advice of the receipt of the document was given to the respondents. (at p382)
4. The estate agents held the document until 2nd April, on which date the drawer had a telephone conversation with an employee of the estate agents about his intention to substitute for…
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 Brien v Dwyer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Brien v Dwyer [1978] HCA 50
Case
[1978] HCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Brien (the appellant) brought proceedings against Dwyer (the respondent) seeking to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The dispute concerned the appellant's entitlement to damages, specifically whether the respondent had established a defence of contributory negligence. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had successfully proven that the appellant's own negligence contributed to the injuries he suffered. This required the court to consider the principles of contributory negligence under Australian law and the onus of proof resting on the party alleging it.
The High Court considered the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the accident and the conduct of both parties. The court applied the established legal principles of negligence, focusing on the duty of care owed by each driver to the other and the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver. The court analysed whether the appellant's actions, if any, fell below this standard and whether such actions were causative of his injuries. The court ultimately found that the respondent had not discharged the onus of proving that the appellant was contributorily negligent.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the court below that had reduced the damages awarded to the appellant on the grounds of contributory negligence. The appellant was awarded the full amount of damages assessed by the trial judge.