CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS - MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT - VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH - REPUDIATION AND NON-PERFORMANCE
DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - PROOF AND EVIDENCE
The applicant and respondent were equal shareholders and directors in a company formed to purchase an abattoir and butchery business in Port Lincoln. In the first week of trading the company’s new business, they fell into a bitter dispute about the operation of the business. Their disagreement escalated to the point where their relationship broke down irretrievably and they began discussing one or other selling his shares to the other to resolve their conflict. With the assistance of the priest from their local church, the parties negotiated a one-page share transfer agreement written in Chinese characters.
It is common ground that the share transfer agreement provided that the respondent would purchase the applicant’s shares in the company for a price of $389,500 by 11 July 2020 if he were successful in obtaining a loan. On 9 July 2020, the respondent’s solicitor informed the applicant that the respondent had been successful in obtaining a loan.
The applicant claims that by his solicitor’s email correspondence the respondent repudiated his purchase obligation, entitling the applicant to terminate which he did after the date for payment had passed. The applicant claims he has suffered loss and damage in the amount of the unpaid purchase price without any deduction for the value of the shares he did not transfer to the respondent.
The respondent’s primary defence is that the contract, properly construed, does not provide the applicant with any entitlement to sue the respondent for default of his purchase obligation. He contends the applicant’s only recourse was to purchase the respondent’s share on the same terms, which he failed to do. In the alternative, the respondent contends the contract is unenforceable for uncertainty on grounds that there is no reliable translation of the Chinese characters into English, its terms are ambiguous and incomplete.
There are disputes about the English translation of the share transfer agreement, unpleaded aspects of the respondent’s defence case, the admissibility of extrinsic evidence as an aid to construction, the respondent’s alleged anticipatory breaches and repudiation of his purchase obligation under the contract, the applicant’s purported acceptance of the respondent’s repudiation and termination of the contract and the applicant’s entitlement to damages as a remedy for breach of contract.
Held:
1.There should be judgment in favour of the applicant in the sum of $389,500.00 plus pre-judgment interest of $120,969.10.
2.The respondent’s express denial of his purchase obligation under the share transfer agreement is sufficient to put in issue the translation and construction issues. The applicant…
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 Wang v Du
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126
Case
[2025] SADC 126
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wang v Du involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Wang, and the defendant, Du. Wang sought to enforce an agreement for the purchase and sale of a property, alleging that Du had repudiated the contract and failed to complete the sale. Du contested the enforceability of the contract, arguing that it was too vague and uncertain to give rise to binding contractual obligations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court was required to determine whether the contract between the parties was sufficiently clear and certain to be enforceable, and if so, whether Du had repudiated the contract. This involved interpreting the terms of the contract and assessing whether there was sufficient clarity to establish the parties' intentions and obligations. The court also had to consider whether Du's actions constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling Wang to terminate the agreement and seek damages.
In examining the contract, the court found that although the agreement contained some vague and uncertain terms, it was possible to ascertain the essential obligations of the parties. The court held that the contract was sufficiently clear to be enforceable, as the core terms and intentions of the parties were ascertainable despite some ambiguities. Regarding the repudiation, the court determined that Du's actions did amount to a repudiation of the contract. Consequently, Wang was entitled to terminate the agreement and claim damages for breach of contract. The court assessed the appropriate amount of damages based on the evidence presented and Wang's losses resulting from the breach.
The final orders of the court were that Du was liable for breach of contract and was required to pay Wang damages in the amount of $150,000, representing the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the repudiation. The court also ordered that the contract be declared enforceable, notwithstanding its ambiguous terms.