CHAN -v- DU BUISSON PERRINE [2014] WASC 219
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 219 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2088/2013 | 17 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | JENKINS J | 26/06/14 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Declarations that: (1) The contract has been lawfully terminated (2) The sellers are entitled to the contractual deposit of $105,000 held by the deposit holder | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KWAI SEONG CHAN CHIEW WAH CHAN LOUIS JEAN-MIC DU BUISSON PERRINE MERCEDES DU BUISSON PERRINE |
Catchwords: | Property law Contract for sale of land Sale of Land Act 1970 (WA) Whether contract a terms contract Valid termination of contract |
Legislation: | Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 61 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 72(1) Sale of Land Act 1970 (WA), s 5, s 6, s 7, s 11, s 19A |
Case References: | Australian Horizons (Vic) Pty Ltd v Ryan Land Co Pty Ltd [1994] 2 VR 463 Barker v Midstyle Nominees Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 75 Braidotti v Queensland City Properties Ltd [1991] HCA 19; (1991) 172 CLR 293 Broadwater Hospitality Management Pty Ltd v Primewest (Lot 4 Davidson Street Kalgoorlie) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2010] WASCA 174 Capper v Thorpe [1998] HCA 24; (1998) 194 CLR 342 Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (Australia) Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 35; (2000) 201 CLR 520 Deeble v Robinson [1954] QB 77 Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99 Grover v Taylor (Unreported, WASC, Library No 8901, 6 June 1991) McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 457 Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 128 Petrie v Dwyer (1954) 91 CLR 99 Sibbles v Highfern Pty Ltd [1987] HCA 66; (1987) 164 CLR 214 Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Victoria) Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 93 Tropical Traders Ltd v Goonan (No 2) [1965] WAR 174 Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 503 Yardley v Saunders [1982] WAR 231 YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings (1964) 109 CLR 395 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- CHIEW WAH CHAN
Plaintiffs
AND
LOUIS JEAN-MIC DU BUISSON PERRINE
MERCEDES DU BUISSON PERRINE
Defendants
Catchwords:
Property law - Contract for sale of land - Sale of Land Act 1970 (WA) - Whether contract a terms contract - Valid termination of contract
Legislation:
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 61
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 72(1)
Sale of Land Act 1970 (WA), s 5, s 6, s 7, s 11, s 19A
Result:
Declarations that:
(1) The contract has been lawfully terminated
- (2) The sellers are entitled to the contractual deposit of $105,000 held by the deposit holder
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs : Mr…
Continue reading Chan v Du Buisson Perrine
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Chan v Du Buisson Perrine [2014] WASC 219
- Case
- [2014] WASC 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Chan v Du Buisson Perrine involved a dispute between the buyers, Chan and others, and the sellers, Du Buisson Perrine, regarding the sale of a property. The buyers had entered into a contract for the sale of land, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia to determine the validity of the contract's termination and the entitlement to a deposit held by a third party. The primary issues before the court were whether the contract constituted a terms contract under the Sale of Land Act 1970 (WA), and if the termination of the contract was lawful. The buyers argued that the contract was not a terms contract and that the termination was invalid. The sellers, on the other hand, contended that the contract was a terms contract and that the termination was justified.
The court considered the nature of the contract and the obligations of the parties under the Sale of Land Act. It was established that the contract was indeed a terms contract, as it was not for the immediate sale of land but rather for the sale of land upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. The court then examined whether the sellers were entitled to terminate the contract. The buyers had failed to satisfy a condition precedent by failing to provide the necessary financing. The court held that the sellers were justified in terminating the contract due to the buyers' breach of the condition precedent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the termination was in accordance with the requirements of the Sale of Land Act, and thus, the termination was valid.
Based on its findings, the court made several declarations. Firstly, it declared that the contract had been lawfully terminated. Secondly, it declared that the sellers were entitled to the contractual deposit of $105,000 held by the deposit holder. The court's decision provided clarity on the nature of the contract and the rights of the parties in the event of a breach of contract. This case highlights the importance of understanding the terms of a contract and the obligations of each party, as well as the consequences of failing to fulfil the conditions outlined in the contract.
The court considered the nature of the contract and the obligations of the parties under the Sale of Land Act. It was established that the contract was indeed a terms contract, as it was not for the immediate sale of land but rather for the sale of land upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. The court then examined whether the sellers were entitled to terminate the contract. The buyers had failed to satisfy a condition precedent by failing to provide the necessary financing. The court held that the sellers were justified in terminating the contract due to the buyers' breach of the condition precedent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the termination was in accordance with the requirements of the Sale of Land Act, and thus, the termination was valid.
Based on its findings, the court made several declarations. Firstly, it declared that the contract had been lawfully terminated. Secondly, it declared that the sellers were entitled to the contractual deposit of $105,000 held by the deposit holder. The court's decision provided clarity on the nature of the contract and the rights of the parties in the event of a breach of contract. This case highlights the importance of understanding the terms of a contract and the obligations of each party, as well as the consequences of failing to fulfil the conditions outlined in the contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
Declarations that:
(1) The contract has been lawfully terminated
(2) The sellers are entitled to the contractual deposit of $105,000 held by the deposit holder
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.