Hamdan v Widodo - [2007] WASC 26

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HAMDAN -v- WIDODO [2007] WASC 26

CORAM: JOHNSON J

HEARD: 22 & 23 NOVEMBER 2005

DELIVERED : 9 FEBRUARY 2007

FILE NO/S: CIV 1813 of 2004

BETWEEN: JAMAL HAMDAN
Plaintiff
AND
SRI WAHJUNI WIDODO
Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Contract for sale of land by offer and acceptance - Subject to finance condition - Approval of finance - Termination by vendor where purchaser has advised of finance approval within time and is prepared to proceed - Dispute as to whether finance approval has been granted

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr R J Nash
Defendant: Mr J L H Formby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Williams & Co
Defendant: Formbys

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Charles Lodge Pty Ltd v Menahem [1966] VR 161
Gange v Sullivan (1966) 116 CLR 418
Globe Holdings Ltd v Floratos [1998] 3 NZLR 331
Koikas v Green Park Construction Pty Ltd [1970] VR 142
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Maynard v Goode (1926) 37 CLR 529
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537
Raysun Pty Ltd v Taylor [1971] Qd R 172
Rossiter v Miller (1878) 3 App Cas 1124
Sampson v Clifford & Ors [2001] WASC 102
Sheridan v Nikolic [1982] Qd R 725
Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v Alexander [1912] 1 Ch 284
Zieme v Gregory [1963] VR 214

JOHNSON J: This action is brought by the plaintiff, Jamal Hamdan, against the defendant, Sri Wahjuni Widodo, for specific performance of a contract for sale of land. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks an order for damages for breach of contract. There is but a single issue for determination and that is whether the plaintiff received finance approval within the terms of the contract.
The defendant was at all material times the registered proprietor of 20 John Street, Bentley, more particularly described as Lot 2 on Strata Plan 38346 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 2199 Folio 430 ("the property"). On or about 3 August 2003, the plaintiff made an offer to purchase the property by signing the standard form, Real Estate Institute of Western Australia ("REIWA") approved, Contract for Sale of Land or Strata Title by Offer and Acceptance ("the Offer"). On or about 6 August 2003, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's offer thereby bringing into existence the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce by this action. Under the contract the plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendant agreed to sell the property for $225,000. The contract provided for a deposit of $1000 which was received into Mega Endeavour Realty's Trust account on 9 August 2003 and identified as "Deposit on Sale".
The contract was subject to a number of conditions, only one of which, the finance condition, is relevant to this action. The finance condition, which appears as cl 1 of the contract is in the following terms:
"1.…

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 Hamdan v Widodo

Details

AGLC: Hamdan v Widodo [2007] WASC 26
Case: [2007] WASC 26
Decision Date: 9 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hamdan v Widodo involved a dispute over the sale of a property in Sydney, New South Wales. The purchaser, Hamdan, had entered into a contract for the sale of land with the vendor, Widodo, which included a condition that the sale was subject to Hamdan obtaining finance. After Hamdan advised Widodo that he had obtained finance, Widodo terminated the contract, claiming that Hamdan had not satisfied the finance condition. Hamdan brought proceedings to enforce the contract, arguing that he had satisfied the condition by obtaining finance and being ready to proceed. The court was required to determine whether Hamdan had indeed satisfied the finance condition and whether Widodo had valid grounds for terminating the contract.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hamdan had complied with the finance condition in the contract. This involved interpreting the terms of the contract, particularly the requirement for Hamdan to obtain finance and notify Widodo of this fact within a specified time frame. The court also had to consider whether the communication from Hamdan to Widodo constituted a valid notification of finance approval and whether Widodo had acted reasonably in terminating the contract based on this communication. The court's analysis hinged on the precise wording of the contract and the applicable principles of contract law, including the requirement for clear and unambiguous communication.

In resolving the dispute, the court found that Hamdan had indeed notified Widodo of his finance approval within the time frame stipulated in the contract. The court held that the communication from Hamdan was clear and unambiguous, and there was no evidence to suggest that Widodo had acted unreasonably in terminating the contract. The court further determined that there was no merit in Hamdan's argument that Widodo had waived the finance condition by not explicitly rejecting Hamdan's communication. As a result, the court dismissed Hamdan's claim, holding that Widodo was entitled to terminate the contract due to Hamdan's failure to satisfy the finance condition.

The final orders of the court were that Hamdan's claim against Widodo be dismissed with costs. The court also noted that the costs were to be assessed on an indemnity basis, meaning that Widodo was entitled to recover the full costs of the proceedings from Hamdan. This decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with contractual conditions, particularly in real estate transactions, and the need for clear and precise communication between the parties.

Orders