Gerardis v Gerges

The case of Gerardis v Gerges involved a dispute over a contract to grant a mortgage on property. The parties were Gerardis, the vendor, and Gerges, the purchaser. The nature of the dispute was whether the contract could be enforced for specific performance, despite it not being evidenced by writing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The vendor had promised to grant the mortgage to the purchaser but failed to do so, and the purchaser sought specific performance of the contract.
The legal issue before the court was whether the contract was enforceable despite the absence of written evidence. The purchaser argued that acts of part performance by the vendor in reliance on the promise were sufficient to establish the contract. The vendor argued that the contract was not enforceable as it did not comply with the statutory requirement for contracts for the sale of land to be in writing. The court had to determine whether the acts of part performance by the vendor were sufficient to establish the contract and whether the purchaser had acted in reliance on the promise to grant the mortgage.
The court held that the acts of part performance by the vendor were sufficient to establish the contract. The purchaser had advanced $20,000 to the vendor towards the purchase price of the property, and the vendor had provided the purchaser with a copy of the title to the property and a contract for sale. The court found that these acts constituted part performance of the contract and that the purchaser had acted in reliance on the promise to grant the mortgage. The court also held that the statutory requirement for contracts for the sale of land to be in writing did not apply to contracts to grant mortgages. As a result, the court granted the purchaser specific performance of the contract, ordering the vendor to grant the mortgage to the purchaser.

The final orders of the court were that the vendor was required to grant the mortgage to the purchaser within a specified time frame and that the purchaser was to pay the remaining purchase price to the vendor. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the vendor. The decision in this case highlights the importance of establishing the existence of a contract and the potential consequences of failing to comply with statutory requirements.