De Campo v De Campo

In the case of De Campo v De Campo, the dispute arose between Rosanna and Gerry, who were beneficiaries under their mother's will. The issue was whether the parties had agreed to compromise their dispute regarding the distribution of the estate, and if the agreement was intended to be legally enforceable. The court had to determine whether the agreement was supported by consideration, whether it was contrary to public policy, and whether it was unenforceable under section 34 of the Property Law Act. The case also involved the question of specific enforcement as a remedy.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether post-contractual statements could be used to construe the terms of a contract, and whether post-contractual conduct was admissible to determine whether a contract existed between the parties. The court also had to consider whether evidence of post-contractual conduct could provide evidence of facts that were against the interests of one party and, as such, were admissible as an admission by that party. The court had to determine whether Gerry's silence in response to correspondence referring to the compromise agreement amounted to an admission of the agreement's existence.

The court found that post-contractual statements could not be used to construe the terms of a contract, but post-contractual conduct was admissible to determine whether a contract existed between the parties. The court held that evidence of post-contractual conduct could provide evidence of facts that were against the interests of one party and could be admissible as an admission by that party. The court found that Gerry's silence in response to correspondence referring to the compromise agreement amounted to an admission of the agreement's existence. The court also found that the letter from Gerry's lawyers on 29 July 2014 was an express admission of the agreement and its terms. Finally, the court found that there was evidence of some conduct consistent with the compromise agreement and, arguably, in furtherance of it, in the division of items such as furniture and motor vehicles.

The court found that there was at least one meeting at the Bakery before the meeting in Mr Dawson's office on 6 December 2013, at which Rosanna and Gerry agreed on the essential terms of an agreement, which Rosanna recorded in a note. Rosanna and Gerry then met in Mr Dawson's office on 6 December 2013, and Rosanna gave Mr Dawson the note recording what had been agreed. Gerry implicitly acknowledged by his conduct after the meeting that an agreement had been made, and explicitly admitted both the agreement and its terms through his lawyers' letter of 29 July 2014. The court found that the essential terms of the agreement were to be found in Rosanna's note, given to Mr Dawson, and in the letter of 29 July 2014.