Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 261

Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 261

Economic duress was not established as there was no illegitimate pressure; both parties were experienced and acted as commercial solution. The March 1994 contracts were not frustrated as further subdivision was always a possibility, not an absolute purpose or assurance. No misleading or deceptive conduct occurred as absolute assurance was not made, and parties understood risks. No negligence as duty of care was not owed. Plaintiffs are entitled to balance purchase monies, commissions, incentives, and value of certain lots; defendants are entitled to repayment of loans, interest per deed, and reimbursement for additional works without compound interest.

Parties
Plaintiff: Alanbert Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Bernoth Realty Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Cecil Alan Bernoth; Defendant: Bulevi Pty Ltd; Defendant: Davhand Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim to set aside deed for duress not made out; defendants' claims for misleading or deceptive conduct and negligence not made out; defendants' claim for payment for extra work established.
Legal Topics
Discharge by Frustration, Economic Duress, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Negotiation of Joint Venture, Real Estate Subdivision, Commission and Incentives, Pleading Under Trade Practices Act, Fair Trading Act Claims, Negligent Misstatement
Contracts Equity Trade and Commerce Discharge by Frustration Economic Duress Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Negotiation of Joint Venture Real Estate Subdivision +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alanbert Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Bernoth Realty Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Cecil Alan Bernoth

Plaintiff

Bulevi Pty Ltd

Defendant

Davhand Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the August 1995 deed should be set aside for duress
  2. 2 Whether contractual arrangements were frustrated
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Economic duress was not established as there was no illegitimate pressure; both parties were experienced and acted as commercial solution. The March 1994 contracts were not frustrated as further subdivision was always a possibility, not an absolute purpose or assurance. No misleading or deceptive conduct occurred as absolute assurance was not made, and parties understood risks. No negligence as duty of care was not owed. Plaintiffs are entitled to balance purchase monies, commissions, incentives, and value of certain lots; defendants are entitled to repayment of loans, interest per deed, and reimbursement for additional works without compound interest.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim to set aside deed for duress not made out; defendants' claims for misleading or deceptive conduct and negligence not made out; defendants' claim for payment for extra work established.

Orders

  • The August 1995 deed not set aside.
  • March 1994 contracts not frustrated.