Hearse v Staunton [2011] NSWCA 139
There was no express or implied representation by Staunton & Thompson that they had Mrs Pallister's authority to bind her as a contracting party. The evidence did not establish the intention to create contractual relations with Mrs Pallister, and ordinary conveyancing practice in NSW requires formal exchange and signatures. No enforceable contract arose between appellants and Mrs Pallister, and no breach of warranty of authority was established.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 June 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['vendor and Purchaser' 'conveyancing Practice' 'warranty of Authority' 'variation of Contracts']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Did Staunton & Thompson represent that they had Mrs Pallister's authority to bind her as a purchaser?" 'Did Mrs Pallister thereby become a party to the contract?' 'Was there breach of warranty of authority by Staunton & Thompson?']
Ratio Decidendi
There was no express or implied representation by Staunton & Thompson that they had Mrs Pallister's authority to bind her as a contracting party. The evidence did not establish the intention to create contractual relations with Mrs Pallister, and ordinary conveyancing practice in NSW requires formal exchange and signatures. No enforceable contract arose between appellants and Mrs Pallister, and no breach of warranty of authority was established.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment