TRAN v PU

In *Tran v Pu*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a contract for the sale of land was voidable due to a misrepresentation made by the vendor, Mr. Pu, concerning the property's zoning. The purchaser, Ms. Tran, alleged that Mr. Pu had falsely represented that the property was zoned for residential use, when in fact it was zoned for commercial use, and that she relied on this misrepresentation when entering into the contract. Ms. Tran sought to rescind the contract and recover her deposit.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Pu's statement constituted a misrepresentation of fact that induced Ms. Tran to enter into the contract. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the statement was a representation of existing fact or a statement of future intention or opinion, and whether Ms. Tran's reliance on the statement was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court also considered the effect of the contract's special conditions, which included a clause stating that the purchaser acknowledged they had not relied on any representation made by the vendor.

Judge Whelan found that Mr. Pu's statement regarding the zoning was a representation of existing fact, not a mere statement of opinion or future intention. The Court determined that Ms. Tran had reasonably relied on this representation, as it was a material factor in her decision to purchase the property. Despite the presence of the special condition, the Court held that Mr. Pu was estopped from relying on it to deny the misrepresentation, as it would be unconscionable to allow him to do so after making a false statement that induced the contract. Consequently, the Court found the contract to be voidable at the instance of Ms. Tran.

The Court ordered that the contract for the sale of land be rescinded, and that Mr. Pu repay the deposit paid by Ms. Tran.