Jerry Schwartz v Albert Hadid Albert Hadid v Jerry Schwartz [2011] NSWSC 1041

Jerry Schwartz v Albert Hadid Albert Hadid v Jerry Schwartz [2011] NSWSC 1041

The Deed of Agreement, construed in light of the investment proposal and the surrounding context known to both parties, was intended to have legal effect and was sufficiently certain. The discretion given to Dr Schwartz related to whether to buy or take options over sites C and D, while the agreement required purchase of site B and pursuit of the joint venture. Because it was common ground that Dr Schwartz withdrew and refused to proceed with sites C and D if the deed was enforceable, he was liable to Mr Hadid for damages to be assessed. On the loan claim, the better view was that the $260,000 was lent to Mr Hadid and paid into Vicbuy's account at his direction; there was no loan...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List; Two Actions Heard Together Concerning Breach of an Alleged Joint Venture Deed and Recovery of a Loan / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Hadid v Schwartz: judgment for Mr Hadid, with costs to date, for damages to be assessed. Schwartz v Hadid: judgment for Dr Schwartz against Mr Hadid for $260,000 and interest, with costs; judgment for Vicbuy with costs; application for a stay refused.
Legal Topics
['deed of Agreement' 'joint Venture' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'contractual Certainty' 'construction of Commercial Agreements' 'loan Recovery' 'personal Liability for Debt' 'stay of Judgment' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'equity' 'commercial Law'] ['deed of Agreement' 'joint Venture' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'contractual Certainty' 'construction of Commercial Agreements' 'loan Recovery' 'personal Liability for Debt' 'stay of Judgment' 'costs']

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 Division Commercial List; Two Actions Heard Together Concerning Breach of an Alleged Joint Venture Deed and Recovery of a Loan / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Deed of Agreement was intended to have legal effect.' 'Whether the terms of the Deed of Agreement were sufficiently certain to be enforceable.' 'Whether Dr Schwartz breached the enforceable joint venture agreement by withdrawing and refusing to continue with the purchase of or taking of options over sites C and D.' 'Whether the $260,000 loan was made to Mr Hadid or to Vicbuy.' 'Whether there was an agreement to defer repayment of the loan until business transactions matured into profit.' "Whether judgment for the loan should be stayed pending assessment of Mr Hadid's damages claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of Agreement, construed in light of the investment proposal and the surrounding context known to both parties, was intended to have legal effect and was sufficiently certain. The discretion given to Dr Schwartz related to whether to buy or take options over sites C and D, while the agreement required purchase of site B and pursuit of the joint venture. Because it was common ground that Dr Schwartz withdrew and refused to proceed with sites C and D if the deed was enforceable, he was liable to Mr Hadid for damages to be assessed. On the loan claim, the better view was that the $260,000 was lent to Mr Hadid and paid into Vicbuy's account at his direction; there was no loan...

Court Disposition

Hadid v Schwartz: judgment for Mr Hadid, with costs to date, for damages to be assessed. Schwartz v Hadid: judgment for Dr Schwartz against Mr Hadid for $260,000 and interest, with costs; judgment for Vicbuy with costs; application for a stay refused.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in Hadid v Schwartz, with costs to date, for damages to be assessed.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff in Schwartz v Hadid against the first defendant for $260,000.00 and interest, with costs.' 'Judgment for the second defendant with costs.' 'Application for a stay refused.' 'Proceedings...