[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 Kennedy v Dodds
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kennedy v Dodds [2010] WADC 122
Case
[2010] WADC 122
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Kennedy v Dodds involved a dispute concerning the sale of land under a contract. The plaintiff, Kennedy, sought to enforce a contract for sale of land against the defendant, Dodds. The contract included a clause that was subject to finance, with a specific lender nominated in the schedule. The plaintiff applied for finance approval to a lender other than the one nominated in the contract. The defendant argued that the application should have been made to the lender nominated in the contract, and that the contract's terms required application to a lender as defined by the contract, which was capable of approving the application.
The legal issues before the court were whether the application for finance approval could be made to a lender other than the one nominated in the schedule, and whether the application needed to be made to a lender as defined by the contract. The court was required to determine the proper interpretation of the contract's terms and the extent to which the parties were bound by them.
The court found that the contract allowed for the application for finance approval to be made to a lender other than the one nominated in the schedule. The court held that the contract did not require the application to be made to a lender as defined by the contract, but rather to a lender that was capable of approving the application. The court held that the plaintiff had made the application to a lender that was capable of approving the application, and that the defendant's argument was without merit. The court found in favour of the plaintiff and ordered judgment in their favour.