Legal Research
Cases
Kotsifas v Parente

Kotsifas v Parente

Case [2016] VSC 833 23 November 2016

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Repudiation & Termination

Relief against forfeiture

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CIVIL LIST

S CI 2015 05808

JOHN KOTSIFAS and ANGELA LOUISE MCCOOK	Plaintiffs
v
CATERINA MARIANA PARENTE and PHILLIP PARENTE	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Efthim AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 August 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 November 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kotsifas v Parente
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 833

---

CONTRACT – Whether rescission notice valid – Relevant reasonable person is a reasonable reader in the position of the purchaser – Reasonable person would have no doubts regarding the meaning of notice – Whether letter was a repudiation of contract for the sale of land – Contract only repudiated when party demonstrates an intention not to be bound by it – Relief against forfeiture – Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), section 49(2)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J Levine	Darroll Nelson
For the Defendant	Mr D P Lloyd	Slater & Gordon Limited

HIS HONOUR:

On 19 September 2014, the plaintiffs, John Kotsifas and Angela Louise McCook, entered into a contract to purchase a property situated at 24 Salisbury Street, Balwyn, Victoria from the first defendant, Caterina Mary Parente.

The property was sold for $2,475,000.00 and the plaintiffs paid a deposit of $247,500.00. Settlement was scheduled to take place on 19 September 2015. The settlement date was extended by mutual agreement to occur on 28 September 2015.

Pursuant to special condition 30 of the contract, the plaintiffs consented to the land being transferred from the first defendant to her husband, Phillip Parente, the second defendant, prior to settlement. The transfer occurred on 8 December 2014. It was not until 29 September 2015 that the plaintiffs became aware of the transfer. Settlement did not take place on 28 September 2015 and on 29 September 2015 the defendants’ solicitors forwarded to the plaintiffs the following letter containing a rescission notice:

I refer to the above matter and previous correspondence with you.

I confirm receipt of your letter dated 24 September 2015 which we received on 28 September 2015 in which you enclose a Transfer of Land and Nomination Form.

I note that in accordance with Special Condition 31 of the Contract, the Vendor transferred the Property to her husband, Phillip Parente on or around December 2014. A recent title Search of the Property is attached for your information.

I note the Form 6A Statutory Declaration was not attached despite your letter suggesting it was. Kindly provide us with a copy of the Statutory Declaration.

I also note that the Nomination Form has not been dated. Please confirm the date of Nomination.

To avoid any unnecessary delays, I will hand amend the Transfer of Land to reflect the current transferor as Phillip Parente not Caterina Mariana Parente.

In the meantime, as settlement did not proceed on 28 September 2015, I am instructed to serve the attached Rescission Notice requiring the Purchaser to settle within a 14 day period.

Notwithstanding the above, your letter suggests that…

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 Kotsifas v Parente

Details

AGLC: Kotsifas v Parente [2016] VSC 833
Case: [2016] VSC 833
Decision Date: 23 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kotsifas v Parente was a case before the Victorian Court of Appeal where the primary issue was the validity of a rescission notice in relation to a contract for the sale of land. The dispute arose when the purchaser, Kotsifas, sought to rescind the contract based on a perceived misrepresentation, and the vendor, Parente, contested the validity of the rescission notice. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the rescission notice was sufficiently clear to be effective under the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic). The central legal question was whether the rescission notice was clear enough for a reasonable reader in the position of the purchaser to understand that the contract was being repudiated. The court examined whether the notice conveyed an unequivocal intention not to be bound by the contract, as required under the Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the relevant reasonable person to consider the clarity of the rescission notice was a reasonable reader in the position of the purchaser. The court found that a reasonable reader would have no doubts regarding the meaning of the notice, which explicitly stated an intention to repudiate the contract. The court determined that for a rescission notice to be valid, it must demonstrate a clear and unequivocal intention not to be bound by the contract. In this instance, the notice was deemed sufficient because it clearly communicated the purchaser's intention to terminate the contract. The court further noted that relief against forfeiture under section 49(2) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) could be granted if the notice met the criteria of clear repudiation.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the rescission notice was valid, as it effectively communicated the purchaser's unequivocal intention to repudiate the contract. Consequently, the court found that the contract for the sale of land was duly rescinded. The decision underscored the importance of clear communication in legal notices, particularly in the context of property transactions. The court did not make any further orders beyond confirming the validity of the rescission notice.

Orders