Cooper v King [2019] NSWSC 86

Cooper v King [2019] NSWSC 86

The buyer failed to establish that any alleged oral representations were made, that any alleged written representations induced her to enter into the contract, or that the sellers breached the statutory warranty relied upon. The Court did not accept the buyer's evidence where inconsistent with Ms Street's evidence and found the objective evidence inconsistent with reliance on the alleged representations. No facts made forfeiture unjust or inequitable. Because the cross-claim failed, the sellers were entitled to a declaration that they validly terminated the contract, forfeiture of the $54,000 paid, payment of the further $54,000 balance of the deposit, and release of the stakeholder funds...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Entitlement to the Deposit Under a Contract for Sale of Land, With a Purchaser's Cross Claim Alleging Misrepresentation, Breach of Statutory Warranty, Rescission and Relief Against Forfeiture / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Summons allowed and cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['contract for Sale of Land' 'deposit Forfeiture' 'notice to Complete' 'termination' 'misrepresentation' 'reliance' 'statutory Warranties Under Sale of Land Legislation' 'rescission' 'relief Against Forfeiture Under Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 55(2 A)' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['land Law' 'conveyancing' 'contracts' 'equity'] ['contract for Sale of Land' 'deposit Forfeiture' 'notice to Complete' 'termination' 'misrepresentation' 'reliance' 'statutory Warranties Under Sale of Land Legislation' 'rescission' 'relief Against Forfeiture Under Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 55(2 A)' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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 Proceedings Concerning Entitlement to the Deposit Under a Contract for Sale of Land, With a Purchaser's Cross Claim Alleging Misrepresentation, Breach of Statutory Warranty, Rescission and Relief Against Forfeiture / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sellers validly terminated the contract for sale after the buyer failed to complete' 'Whether the buyer was induced to enter into the contract by alleged oral or written misrepresentations concerning the lower level accommodation, dual occupancy, separate rental and rental values' 'Whether the sellers breached statutory warranties implied by s 52A(2)(b) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) and cl 8 of the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010 (NSW)' 'Whether the buyer validly terminated or rescinded the contract' 'Whether the buyer was entitled to repayment of the deposit or relief against forfeiture under s 55(2A) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)' 'Whether the buyer was liable to pay the balance of the 10% deposit']

Ratio Decidendi

The buyer failed to establish that any alleged oral representations were made, that any alleged written representations induced her to enter into the contract, or that the sellers breached the statutory warranty relied upon. The Court did not accept the buyer's evidence where inconsistent with Ms Street's evidence and found the objective evidence inconsistent with reliance on the alleged representations. No facts made forfeiture unjust or inequitable. Because the cross-claim failed, the sellers were entitled to a declaration that they validly terminated the contract, forfeiture of the $54,000 paid, payment of the further $54,000 balance of the deposit, and release of the stakeholder funds...

Court Disposition

Summons allowed and cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the contract for sale dated 4 May 2017 between the plaintiffs and the first defendant was validly terminated by the plaintiffs, and the sum of $54,000 paid by the first defendant has been forfeited.' 'Order the second defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $54,000 received from the first...