SHONE -v- DAVIES [2012] WASCA 83
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASCA 83 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:51/2011 | 15 FEBRUARY 2012 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS JA MURPHY JA | 13/04/12 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part Cross-appeal allowed in part Notice of contention in cross-appeal allowed in part | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SHONE -v- DAVIES [2012] WASCA 83 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS JA
MURPHY JA
Continue reading Shone v Davies
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Shone v Davies [2012] WASCA 83
- Case
- [2012] WASCA 83
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shone v Davies involved a dispute between the parties over an option to purchase land, where the land was subject to a mortgage. The dispute arose when the vendor sought to enforce the option, and the purchaser contested the validity of the option due to the mortgage. The matter was brought before the court to determine various legal issues, including the enforceability of the option, the applicability of an implied term, the possibility of rectification or estoppel, and the nature of the misleading and deceptive conduct. The court was also required to assess whether a term was wholly or substantially for the benefit of one party and whether it fell within the meaning of 'in trade or commerce' in relation to the sale of residential sub-divisible property.
The court examined the enforceability of the option to purchase land, considering whether the mortgage over the land affected the option. The court also assessed the applicability of an implied term, particularly focusing on the test of business efficacy, and whether the term was essential to the agreement. Furthermore, the court considered the possibility of rectification or estoppel preventing the enforcement of the option. The court also evaluated the nature of the misleading and deceptive conduct, the waiver of a term, and whether a term was wholly or substantially for the benefit of one party. Finally, the court assessed whether the term fell within the meaning of 'in trade or commerce' in relation to the sale of residential sub-divisible property.
The court found that the option to purchase land was enforceable despite the mortgage over the land, as the mortgage did not affect the option's validity. The court also determined that an implied term was applicable based on the test of business efficacy. However, the court found that the term was not essential to the agreement, as it did not meet the test of essentiality. The court held that rectification or estoppel did not prevent the enforcement of the option. The court further found that the misleading and deceptive conduct did not constitute a waiver of the term, and that the term was not wholly or substantially for the benefit of one party. Finally, the court determined that the term did fall within the meaning of 'in trade or commerce' in relation to the sale of residential sub-divisible property.
The court's orders were that the appeal was allowed in part, the cross-appeal was allowed in part, and the notice of contention in the cross-appeal was allowed in part. The court's orders reflected its findings on the various legal issues and provided a resolution to the dispute between the parties.
The court examined the enforceability of the option to purchase land, considering whether the mortgage over the land affected the option. The court also assessed the applicability of an implied term, particularly focusing on the test of business efficacy, and whether the term was essential to the agreement. Furthermore, the court considered the possibility of rectification or estoppel preventing the enforcement of the option. The court also evaluated the nature of the misleading and deceptive conduct, the waiver of a term, and whether a term was wholly or substantially for the benefit of one party. Finally, the court assessed whether the term fell within the meaning of 'in trade or commerce' in relation to the sale of residential sub-divisible property.
The court found that the option to purchase land was enforceable despite the mortgage over the land, as the mortgage did not affect the option's validity. The court also determined that an implied term was applicable based on the test of business efficacy. However, the court found that the term was not essential to the agreement, as it did not meet the test of essentiality. The court held that rectification or estoppel did not prevent the enforcement of the option. The court further found that the misleading and deceptive conduct did not constitute a waiver of the term, and that the term was not wholly or substantially for the benefit of one party. Finally, the court determined that the term did fall within the meaning of 'in trade or commerce' in relation to the sale of residential sub-divisible property.
The court's orders were that the appeal was allowed in part, the cross-appeal was allowed in part, and the notice of contention in the cross-appeal was allowed in part. The court's orders reflected its findings on the various legal issues and provided a resolution to the dispute between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part
Cross-appeal allowed in part
Notice of contention in cross-appeal allowed in part
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.