Ferrazza v Pandher [2009] NSWSC 66

Ferrazza v Pandher [2009] NSWSC 66

The vendors repeatedly failed to provide access for a valuer notwithstanding the purchasers' contractual entitlement to a reasonably required inspection. That breach caused the purchasers' inability to obtain sufficient finance and complete, so the vendors could not rely on the completion date, notice to complete, or notice of termination. The purported termination was a repudiation accepted by the purchasers, and because the consideration for the payments wholly failed the purchasers were entitled to repayment of the moneys paid under the contracts, with limited interest, but not to damages for losses connected with the Lakemba financing arrangements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Dispute Concerning Contracts for Sale of Real Property and a Business / Principal Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants for $321,600.00; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['vendor and Purchaser' 'time for Completion' 'notice to Complete' 'inspection and Valuation Access' 'repudiation' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'damages and Remoteness' 'interest' 'limitation']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'restitution' 'civil Procedure'] ['vendor and Purchaser' 'time for Completion' 'notice to Complete' 'inspection and Valuation Access' 'repudiation' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'damages and Remoteness' 'interest' 'limitation']

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 Dispute Concerning Contracts for Sale of Real Property and a Business / Principal Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the vendors breached the contract term authorising the purchasers to have the property inspected to obtain reports reasonably required, including a valuation.' "Whether the vendors' breach caused the purchasers' inability to obtain finance and complete." 'Whether the vendors were disentitled to rely on the completion date, notice to complete and notice of termination.' 'Whether the notice of termination constituted repudiation accepted by the purchasers.' 'Whether the purchasers could recover deposits and other moneys paid, interest, and claimed losses relating to financing arrangements over the Lakemba property.']

Ratio Decidendi

The vendors repeatedly failed to provide access for a valuer notwithstanding the purchasers' contractual entitlement to a reasonably required inspection. That breach caused the purchasers' inability to obtain sufficient finance and complete, so the vendors could not rely on the completion date, notice to complete, or notice of termination. The purported termination was a repudiation accepted by the purchasers, and because the consideration for the payments wholly failed the purchasers were entitled to repayment of the moneys paid under the contracts, with limited interest, but not to damages for losses connected with the Lakemba financing arrangements.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants for $321,600.00; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Give judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants for $321,600.00.' 'Costs reserved.']