Pinemark Pty Ltd v Foley

Pinemark Pty Ltd sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against Foley. The contract stipulated a settlement date, which Pinemark did not meet. Foley terminated the contract, and Pinemark claimed an oral agreement had extended the settlement date. Pinemark also sought equitable relief to prevent Foley from denying the alleged oral agreement. The primary issues were whether the contract had been varied by an oral agreement and, if so, whether Foley was estopped from denying the oral agreement.

The court examined the contract, which clearly stated that any alterations needed to be in writing. The court found that Pinemark had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that an oral agreement had been made to extend the settlement date. The court also considered the doctrine of estoppel, but determined that Pinemark could not rely on it as it did not demonstrate that it had relied on any representation by Foley to its detriment. The court held that Foley was entitled to terminate the contract due to Pinemark's failure to settle on the agreed date.

The court dismissed Pinemark’s claim and ordered Pinemark to pay Foley’s costs of the action. The parties were granted liberty to apply for further orders if necessary. The court ruled that there was no evidence of an oral agreement extending the settlement date and, consequently, Pinemark was not entitled to specific performance of the contract.