Mehmet v Carter [2017] NSWSC 1067

Mehmet v Carter [2017] NSWSC 1067

Aboriginal objects owned by the Crown and located in or on the subject land do not form part of the subject matter of the contract for sale and do not constitute a defect in title for purposes of the contract. The vendor's continued claim for interest (from 5 August 2015) did not amount to repudiation of the contract and did not entitle the plaintiffs to terminate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Determination of Separate Questions Prior to Remaining Issues
Outcome
Separate questions answered favourably to vendor defendants.
Legal Topics
['defect in Title' 'aboriginal Objects' 'obligations of Vendor' 'interest on Purchase Price' 'repudiation' 'contract Construction' 'completion of Contract']
['land Law' 'contract Law'] ['defect in Title' 'aboriginal Objects' 'obligations of Vendor' 'interest on Purchase Price' 'repudiation' 'contract Construction' 'completion of Contract']

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

Principal Judgment / Determination of Separate Questions Prior to Remaining Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Do Aboriginal objects owned by the Crown constitute a defect in title to land?' 'Are such objects included in the subject matter of the sale?' 'Does the existence of Aboriginal objects give the Crown an interest in the subject land?' 'Was the vendor entitled to claim interest for delay in completion?' 'Did the vendor repudiate the contract by continuing to demand interest?']

Ratio Decidendi

Aboriginal objects owned by the Crown and located in or on the subject land do not form part of the subject matter of the contract for sale and do not constitute a defect in title for purposes of the contract. The vendor's continued claim for interest (from 5 August 2015) did not amount to repudiation of the contract and did not entitle the plaintiffs to terminate.

Court Disposition

Separate questions answered favourably to vendor defendants.

Orders

  • ['Question 1: No' 'Question 2: Does not arise' 'Question 3: Does not arise' 'Question 4: No' "Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of determination of the separate questions"]