Rizk v Link Commercial Mortgages Pty Limited

Rizk, the plaintiff, brought an action against Link Commercial Mortgages, the defendant, seeking to have a loan agreement voided due to the incapacity of the person who signed the contract on behalf of the plaintiff. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the engagement letter and loan agreement were void because the signatory, who was not authorised to bind the plaintiff company, lacked the capacity to do so. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that it was entitled to payment for services rendered in procuring the loan.

The court was required to determine whether the engagement letter and loan agreement were void due to the incapacity of the signatory, and whether the plaintiff was bound by the contract. The court had to consider the capacity of the signatory, the authority of the signatory to bind the plaintiff, and whether the defendant was entitled to payment for services rendered. The court also needed to examine the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and whether the defendant had acted in good faith.

The court found that the signatory did not have the authority to bind the plaintiff company to the loan agreement, and that the contract was therefore void. The court held that the plaintiff was not bound by the contract, and that the defendant was not entitled to payment for services rendered. The court further found that the defendant had acted in good faith, and that the defendant was entitled to recover the money owed to it for services provided in procuring the finance for the plaintiff. The court determined that the defendant was entitled to be compensated for its services, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $37,500, together with interest.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $37,500, together with interest, and further ordered that the loan agreement and engagement letter were null and void. The court held that the plaintiff was not liable to the defendant for any amount in relation to the loan agreement or engagement letter, and that the defendant was entitled to recover the money owed to it for services rendered in procuring the finance for the plaintiff. The court also found that the defendant had acted in good faith, and that the defendant was entitled to be compensated for its services.