McCourt v Cranston

Case [2009] WASC 56

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   MCCOURT -v- CRANSTON [2009] WASC 56

CORAM:   TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD:   23 & 24 FEBRUARY 2009

DELIVERED          :   17 MARCH 2009

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1072 of 2009

BETWEEN:   DANIEL PATRICK REDDEN MCCOURT

RUTH ELLEN MCCOURT
Plaintiffs

AND

SHARNE MARY CRANSTON
Defendant

ACTON REAL ESTATE PTY LTD
First Third Party

AMANDA GRAY
Second Third Party

Catchwords:

Contract - Sale of land - Construction of terms - 120 days allowed for time between contract and settlement - Vendor drafts clause to extend time by mutual agreement - Clause also provides that settlement of sale of purchaser's land is concurrent with settlement of sale of vendor's land - Whether contract unconditional - Harmony between all parts of contract - Whether ambiguity - Application of contra profertum rule

Contract - Termination - Purchaser selling her land to buy vendor's land - No offers for purchaser's land - Whether reasonable endeavour by purchaser to sell her land - Alleged representation that vendor would extend time for settlement to enable purchaser to sell her land - Whether misrepresentation - Whether inducement to contract - Whether entitlement to termination

Agency - Vendor's real estate agent acting for his purchaser in sale of her land - Irreconcilable conflict between duties

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiff's claim against defendant dismissed
Defendant's counterclaim for deposit successful
Defendant entitled to indemnity from the third parties

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs:     Mr H R Robinson

Defendant:     Mr M M Mony de Kerloy

First Third Party            :     Mr J L Sher

Second Third Party       :     Mr J L Sher

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs:     Haydn Robinson

Defendant:     Mony de Kerloy

First Third Party            :     DLA Phillips Fox

Second Third Party       :     DLA Phillips Fox

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

Aintree Holdings Pty Ltd v Ground & Foundation Supports Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 225

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] 217 CLR 424

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99

Beach Petroleum NL v Abbott Tout Russell Kennedy (1999) 33 ACSR 1

Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1

Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v Fekala Pty Ltd (2006) 65 NSWLR 648

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341

Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd [2004] 218 CLR 89

Maguire v Makaronis (1997) 188 CLR 449

NEA Pty Ltd v Magenta Mining Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 106

Palasty v Parlby [2007] NSWCA 345

Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537

Seven Seas Properties Ltd v Al‑Essa (No 2) [1993] 3 All ER 577

Sumy Pty Ltd v Southcorp Wines Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1000

TEMPLEMAN J: 

Introduction

  1. In this action, the plaintiffs, Daniel Patrick Redden McCourt and his wife, Ruth Ellen McCourt, as vendors of a property at 1 Agett Road, Claremont (Agett Road), seek an order for the specific performance of a written contract for the sale of that property against the defendant, Sharne Mary Cranston, as purchaser. 

  2. Mr and…

Continue reading McCourt v Cranston

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McCourt v Cranston [2009] WASC 56
Case
[2009] WASC 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McCourt v Cranston involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, McCourt, was the purchaser of a property from the defendant, Cranston. The contract included a clause that allowed for an extension of the 120-day period between the contract and settlement by mutual agreement. It also stipulated that the settlement of the sale of the purchaser's land would be concurrent with the settlement of the sale of the vendor's land. The central legal issues in this case were whether the contract was unconditional, whether there was ambiguity in the terms, and whether the contra proferentem rule should apply in its interpretation. Additionally, the case explored whether the purchaser had made reasonable endeavours to sell her own land, if there had been a misrepresentation regarding the extension of the settlement time, and if such a misrepresentation could be considered an inducement to contract, warranting termination of the agreement.

The court examined the contract's terms in their entirety, applying the principle that all parts of a contract should be harmonious. It found that the contract was not ambiguous and did not require the application of the contra proferentem rule. The court also determined that the purchaser had not made reasonable endeavours to sell her own land, and that there was no misrepresentation or inducement to contract. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and ruled in favour of the defendant's counterclaim for the deposit. Furthermore, the defendant was granted an entitlement to an indemnity from the third parties involved in the sale.

In summary, the court's final orders were that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was dismissed, the defendant's counterclaim for the deposit was successful, and the defendant was entitled to an indemnity from the third parties. This decision underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the necessity for purchasers to make reasonable efforts to sell their own properties in the context of a chain of sales.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim against defendant dismissed

Defendant's counterclaim for deposit successful

Defendant entitled to indemnity from the third parties

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.