Nassif v Fahd

The dispute in *Nassif v Fahd* concerned an alleged oral agreement collateral to written contracts for the sale of land. The appellants, Nassif and others, sought to enforce this oral agreement against the respondents, Fahd and others, who were the vendors of the property. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an oral collateral agreement, which stipulated an additional payment of $150,000 and out-of-pocket expenses, was enforceable when it was inconsistent with the terms of the written contracts for the sale of the land. Specifically, the court had to determine if the oral agreement could stand independently of, and in addition to, the consideration stated in the written agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the oral collateral agreement was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with the written contracts. The court applied the principle that a collateral contract cannot be enforced if its terms contradict or are inconsistent with the main written contract. In this instance, the oral agreement to pay an additional $150,000 and out-of-pocket expenses was found to be inconsistent with the consideration agreed upon in the written contracts for the sale of the property.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and orders of the District Court were set aside. The Court of Appeal entered judgment for the defendants and reserved further consideration of costs in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal, directing written submissions from the parties on the appropriate cost orders.