TREACEY v FERDINANDS [2002] NSWSC 31

TREACEY v FERDINANDS [2002] NSWSC 31

The language of the letters of 16 and 17 June 1997 shows that the first, second, and third defendants made the contractual promises as principals and not as agents for other parties; accordingly, they personally were obliged to pay the sum for the share and note transfer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Separate Question Tried; Judgment Entered
Outcome
Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first, second, and third defendants for $130,000 with costs. Separate question answered in the affirmative. Further consideration of interest reserved.
Legal Topics
['interpretation' 'construction of Document' 'agency' 'share Purchase Agreements']
['contract'] ['interpretation' 'construction of Document' 'agency' 'share Purchase Agreements']

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 / Separate Question Tried; Judgment Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendants 1, 2, and 3 were obliged to pay $150,000 for transfer of shares and note holdings under the true construction of agreement evidenced by letters of 16 and 17 June 1997']

Ratio Decidendi

The language of the letters of 16 and 17 June 1997 shows that the first, second, and third defendants made the contractual promises as principals and not as agents for other parties; accordingly, they personally were obliged to pay the sum for the share and note transfer.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first, second, and third defendants for $130,000 with costs. Separate question answered in the affirmative. Further consideration of interest reserved.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the second plaintiff against first, second, and third defendants for $130,000 with costs.' "Separate question (whether defendants obliged to pay) answered 'Yes'." 'Further consideration of interest reserved.']