Evans v Jan

The case of Evans v Jan involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Evans, and the defendant, Jan, concerning the sale of a residential property at Shailer Park. The central issue in this litigation pertains to the authority of Jan's realtor to negotiate the payment date of the deposit under the contract, the applicability of promissory estoppel, and whether Jan had elected to affirm the contract of sale. The case was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The legal issues addressed by the court involved the determination of whether the defendant’s realtor had actual or ostensible authority to negotiate the payment date of the deposit. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's realtor had the authority to accept late payment, whether the plaintiff's unilateral decision to delay payment constituted a breach of the contract, and whether any election to affirm the contract had occurred. Additionally, the court examined whether promissory estoppel applied in light of the realtor's alleged inducement of a belief that late payment was permissible.

The court concluded that the defendant’s realtor did not have actual authority to negotiate the payment date of the deposit. There was no evidence that Jan had granted such authority to her realtor. The court also found that the realtor did not have ostensible authority to accept late payment, as the plaintiff had not relied on any representation by the realtor to his detriment. Furthermore, the court determined that no election to affirm the contract had occurred because the text messages from the realtor did not unequivocally affirm the contract, and Jan had no knowledge of the circumstances leading to the alleged exercise of election. Finally, the court held that no promissory estoppel arose because the alleged inducement came from the realtor, who did not act with actual or ostensible authority on behalf of Jan.

In light of these findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance and ruled in favour of the defendant’s counterclaim. Consequently, the deposit was forfeited to the defendant, with interest accruing from 29 January 2024 until payment.