Iannello v Sharpe [2006] NSWSC 713

Iannello v Sharpe [2006] NSWSC 713

The alteration changing the deposit provisions from $225,000 or five per cent to $450,000 or ten per cent was material. Although the vendors' solicitor was authorised to make the alterations, there was no evidence that the purchaser or his solicitor was authorised to make or accept those amendments after the purchaser signed. Because the material alteration was not shown to have been made by or under the authority of the purchaser, the contract did not come into existence, the vendors' claim failed, and the purchaser was entitled to repayment of the amount paid on exchange.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Dispute Concerning a Contract for Sale of Land / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs' claim and for the cross-claimant on the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['contract for Sale of Land' 'material Alteration Before Exchange' 'authority of Solicitor' 'deposit Forfeiture' 'cross Claim for Refund of Deposit']
['property Law' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['contract for Sale of Land' 'material Alteration Before Exchange' 'authority of Solicitor' 'deposit Forfeiture' 'cross Claim for Refund of Deposit']

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

Vendor and Purchaser Dispute Concerning a Contract for Sale of Land / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a contract for sale of land came into existence where amendments were made to the purchaser's signed contract before exchange." 'Whether the alteration changing the deposit from five per cent to ten per cent was material.' 'Whether the purchaser or his solicitor authorised the amendments made before exchange.' 'Whether the vendors were entitled to forfeit the deposit and recover the balance of the deposit and damages.' 'Whether the purchaser was entitled to repayment of the amount paid on exchange.']

Ratio Decidendi

The alteration changing the deposit provisions from $225,000 or five per cent to $450,000 or ten per cent was material. Although the vendors' solicitor was authorised to make the alterations, there was no evidence that the purchaser or his solicitor was authorised to make or accept those amendments after the purchaser signed. Because the material alteration was not shown to have been made by or under the authority of the purchaser, the contract did not come into existence, the vendors' claim failed, and the purchaser was entitled to repayment of the amount paid on exchange.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs' claim and for the cross-claimant on the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ["Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs' claim." 'Judgment for the cross-claimant on the cross-claim against the cross-defendants for $225,000.' "Subject to any existing orders, plaintiffs to pay defendant's costs of the proceedings." 'Proceedings on the judgment stayed for twenty-eight days, the exhibits to...