Legal Research
Cases
Sha v Liu

Sha v Liu

Case [2022] NSWSC 325 24 March 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Sha v Liu [2022] NSWSC 325
Hearing dates: 7, 8 March 2022
Decision date: 24 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Leeming JA
Decision:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff Mr Yunlong Sha against the defendant Ms Hua Liu in the amount of $992,610.44 plus interest of $159,089.62.
2. Ms Liu to pay Mr Sha’s costs of the proceeding as agreed or assessed, but on the basis that the costs of the trial should be calculated as if the hearing had completed in a single day.

Catchwords:
CONTRACT – existence – offer and acceptance – whether acceptance of offer by conduct – whether necessary to plead – consideration – whether consideration must move from promisee – whether provision of money from account of lender’s wife effected by negotiator amounted to consideration moving from promisee – judgment entered in favour of plaintiff

Legislation Cited:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 191, 195, 601AD
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v K S Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309
Allen v Carbone (1975) 132 CLR 528; [1975] HCA 14
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v G R Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195; [1990] 3 All ER 25
Bombardier Inc v Avwest Aircraft Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 2
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153; [2001] NSWCA 61
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424; [2001] FCA 1833
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 666
Bundanoon Sandstone Pty Ltd v Cenric Group Pty Ltd; TWT Property Group Pty Ltd v Cenric Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 87; 373 ALR 591
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
Celthene Pty Ltd v W K J Hauliers Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 606
Cherry v Steele-Park (2017) 96 NSWLR 548; [2017] NSWCA 295
Commissioner of Taxation v Croft [2017] 2 Qd R 382; [2016] QSC 190
Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd (1967) 119 CLR 460; [1967] HCA 3
Crow v Municipality of Clarence [1983] Tas R 56
Darzi Group Pty Ltd v Nolde Pty Ltd (2019) 100 NSWLR 394; [2019] NSWCA 210
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v Selfridge and Company Ltd [1915] AC 847
Eccles v Bryant and Pollock [1948] Ch 93
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420; [1956] HCA 53
French v Bremner; Bremner v French [2020] NSWCA 339
G R Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631
GC NSW Pty Ltd v Galati [2020] NSWCA 326
Gilbert J McCaul (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pitt Club Ltd (1957) 59 SR (NSW) 122
Hagerty v Hills…

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 Sha v Liu

Details

AGLC: Sha v Liu [2022] NSWSC 325
Case: [2022] NSWSC 325
Decision Date: 24 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sha v Liu, the plaintiff sought to enforce a contract for the sale of a property. The defendants, Liu and his wife, denied the existence of a binding contract and contested the plaintiff's claim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the existence of a contract, the method of acceptance of an offer, and the sufficiency of consideration. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether acceptance of an offer could be established through conduct and whether consideration must necessarily originate from the promisee.

The court examined the evidence and found that an offer had indeed been made and accepted, evidenced by the defendants' conduct. The court held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to plead the specific method of acceptance, as the conduct demonstrated a clear acceptance of the offer. Furthermore, the court addressed the question of consideration, ruling that consideration did not have to move directly from the promisee, but could instead move from a third party, such as the lender's wife in this instance. The provision of money from the wife's account, facilitated by the negotiator, was deemed sufficient consideration, thereby satisfying the requirements for a valid contract.

Consequently, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, Sha, and entered judgment in his favour. The defendants were ordered to complete the sale of the property as per the terms of the contract. This decision underscored the importance of conduct in establishing acceptance and the flexibility in the origin of consideration in contract law.

Orders