Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 288

Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 288

The new commission and incentive regime did not come into operation until 16 December 1996 and, as incorporated from Annexure A and amended on 17 December 1996, applied to lots 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and later lot 13, but not to lots 3 or 4. The evidence established that $8,200 was paid for lot 2, did not establish that the additional $3,900 for lot 4 reached the plaintiffs, did not prove an oral agreement applying the new regime to lot 4, showed the lot 8 sale was outside the sole agency period, and showed the lot 10 payment of $10,550 was not reduced by the plaintiffs' private stamp duty arrangement with the purchaser.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Contractual Commissions and Incentives on Sale of Subdivision Lots / Judgment Determining Eight Contested Items After Earlier Judgment
Outcome
Disputes relating to amounts of payments, commissions and incentives determined; matter stood over for further argument on monetary judgment and mortgage amount.
Legal Topics
['construction and Interpretation of Contracts' 'incorporation of Words Used in Other Document' 'commission and Incentive Payments' 'sole Selling Agency' 'proof of Payment']
['contract Law' 'equity'] ['construction and Interpretation of Contracts' 'incorporation of Words Used in Other Document' 'commission and Incentive Payments' 'sole Selling Agency' 'proof of Payment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding Concerning Contractual Commissions and Incentives on Sale of Subdivision Lots / Judgment Determining Eight Contested Items After Earlier Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether $8,200 in relation to lot 2 was paid to the plaintiffs.' 'Whether commission on lot 3 was payable under the old regime or the new regime.' 'Whether an additional $3,900 in relation to lot 4 was paid to the plaintiffs.' 'Whether commission on lot 4 was $3,400 or $5,000 under the rates dispute.' 'Whether the incentive in respect of lot 4 was payable and in what amount.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to commission on lot 8 although another agent effected the sale after expiry of the alleged sole agency period.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a $2,150 incentive payment on lot 9.' 'Whether the amount paid to the plaintiffs on lot 10 should be treated as $10,550 or reduced by $2,626 paid to the Office of State Revenue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The new commission and incentive regime did not come into operation until 16 December 1996 and, as incorporated from Annexure A and amended on 17 December 1996, applied to lots 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and later lot 13, but not to lots 3 or 4. The evidence established that $8,200 was paid for lot 2, did not establish that the additional $3,900 for lot 4 reached the plaintiffs, did not prove an oral agreement applying the new regime to lot 4, showed the lot 8 sale was outside the sole agency period, and showed the lot 10 payment of $10,550 was not reduced by the plaintiffs' private stamp duty arrangement with the purchaser.

Court Disposition

Disputes relating to amounts of payments, commissions and incentives determined; matter stood over for further argument on monetary judgment and mortgage amount.

Orders

  • ["Matter stood over till 10 o'clock tomorrow, 9 April 2002, for argument on what monetary judgment should be entered and what amount, if any, is secured under the mortgage over lot 13."]