Adricula v Samwood [2000] NSWSC 57

Adricula v Samwood [2000] NSWSC 57

The contract was not completed on the due date of 9 September 1998, a notice to complete dated 10 September 1998 was given, and the contract was still not completed in accordance with that notice. The plaintiffs validly terminated the contract and were entitled to forfeit the deposit, because any argument about lack of signing or execution was defeated by the purchaser's solicitors' affirmation of execution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Termination of Contract Return of Deposit / Hearing of the Plaintiffs' Claim; Defendants Did Not Appear
Outcome
Declarations and orders made for the plaintiffs; first defendant ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['termination of Contract for Sale of Land' 'notice to Complete' 'forfeiture and Return of Deposit' 'costs']
['property Law' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['termination of Contract for Sale of Land' 'notice to Complete' 'forfeiture and Return of Deposit' '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

Vendor and Purchaser Termination of Contract Return of Deposit / Hearing of the Plaintiffs' Claim; Defendants Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs had validly terminated the contract for sale of 14 Harrow Street, Auburn.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover or forfeit the deposit after non-completion.' 'Whether the first defendant could rely on an argument that the contract was not signed or properly executed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was not completed on the due date of 9 September 1998, a notice to complete dated 10 September 1998 was given, and the contract was still not completed in accordance with that notice. The plaintiffs validly terminated the contract and were entitled to forfeit the deposit, because any argument about lack of signing or execution was defeated by the purchaser's solicitors' affirmation of execution.

Court Disposition

Declarations and orders made for the plaintiffs; first defendant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['Declarations as sought in paragraph 1 of the summons, substituting the word "terminated" for "rescinded".' 'Declaration as sought in paragraph 2.' 'Order as sought in paragraph 4.' 'The first defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiffs of the proceedings and the costs of the second defendant, but only as if it...