Legal Research
Cases
Butcher v Harkins

Butcher v Harkins

Case [2001] NSWSC 15 2 May 2001

Breach of Contract

Repudiation & Termination

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Butcher v Harkins [2001] NSWSC 15

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2580/97 and 2733/98

HEARING DATE(S): 12-16 July, 5 August, 23 September 1999, 15 & 16 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 May 2001

PARTIES :

Jeffrey Gordon Butcher & Judith Kay Radford (P, 2580/97 & 2733/98)
Robert Edward Harkins (D, 2580/97) and (CD, 2733/98)
Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Limited (D1, 2733/98)
James Dive and Katrina Hishon (D2, 2733/98)
Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Limited (CC, 2733/98)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : G Moore (P)
W Hodgekiss (D in 2580/97 & CD 2733/98)
J Gooley (D1 & CC in 2733/98)

SOLICITORS: Williams Woolf & Zuur (P)
Murray Stewart & Fogarty (D1 & CC in 2733/98)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - termination for breach - what constitutes essential term - whether stopping of payment on cheque constituted repudiation CONVEYANCING - refund of deposit - scope of discretion under s 55(2A) of Conveyancing Act TRADE PRACTICES - misleading and deceptive conduct - representation as to future matter - whether real estate agents' brochure was misleading - whether plaintiffs should have obtained their own survey

LEGISLATION CITED: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 87
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) ss 74J, 74O
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) ss 55(2A), 66T, 66X, 66W

CASES CITED: Academy of Health v Power [1973] VR 254
Argy v Blunts & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 112
Auty v Thompson (1903) 5 NZGLR 541
Brien v Dwyer (1979) 53 ALJR 123
Central Railway Co of Venezuela v Kisch (1867) LR 2 HL 99
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Demagogue v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423
Edgar v Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (1992) ATPR (Digest) 40-096
Emma Silver Mining Co v Grant (1879) 11Ch D 918
Finucane v NSW Egg Corporation (1988) 80 ALR 486
Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (1988) ATPR 40-850
Hornsby Building Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216
Hymes v Byrne (1899) 9 QLJ 154
Kennedy v Panama Mail Co (1867) LR 2 QB 580
Lewis v Cook [2000] NSWSC 191
Lezam Pty Ltd v Seabridge Australia Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 535
Lucas & Tait (Investments) Pty Ltd v Victoria Securities Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR 268
MacCormick v Nowland (1988) ATPR 40-852
Main Lodge Pty Ltd v Barque Holdings Pty Ltd (1982) NSW ConvR para 55-049
McDonald's System of Australia Pty Ltd v McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd (1979) ATPR 40-140
Mellor v Walmesley [1905] 2 Ch 164
Oakes v Turquand (1867) LR 2 HL 325
Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1
Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v Uim Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) ATPR (Digest) 46-010
SA Mearns v Parris Holdings Pty Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,677
Sabre Corporation Pty Ltd v Laboratories Pharm-a-Care Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-396
Saints Gallery Pty Ltd v Plummer (1988) ALR 525
Simons v Zarton…

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 Butcher v Harkins

Details

AGLC: Butcher v Harkins [2001] NSWSC 15
Case: [2001] NSWSC 15
Decision Date: 2 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Butcher and his wife, sought a declaration that a contract for the sale of land to them had been repudiated by the defendants, Harkins and their real estate agents. The dispute centred on whether the defendants' cessation of payment on a cheque and the subsequent refusal to refund the deposit constituted a repudiation of the contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' actions constituted a repudiation of the contract and, if so, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a refund of their deposit. The court also needed to assess whether the real estate agents' brochure contained misleading representations regarding the condition of the property and whether the plaintiffs should have obtained their own survey.

The court held that the defendants' stopping of payment on the cheque did not constitute a repudiation of the contract. The court found that the defendants' conduct did not demonstrate an intention not to be bound by the contract. The court also determined that the real estate agents' brochure did not contain misleading representations. The brochure was considered to be an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on it. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs should have obtained their own survey and could not rely on the defendants' brochure to justify their failure to do so. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund of their deposit.

The court's decision was that the defendants had not repudiated the contract, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund of their deposit. The court emphasised that the plaintiffs should have taken reasonable steps to verify the condition of the property, such as obtaining their own survey, rather than relying solely on the real estate agents' brochure. The court's ruling provided clarity on the nature of repudiation in the context of real estate transactions and the importance of independent verification of property conditions. The plaintiffs were left without a declaration that the contract had been repudiated and without a refund of their deposit.

Orders