Kriketos v Eisman [2007] NSWSC 496

Kriketos v Eisman [2007] NSWSC 496

No concluded agreement arose because, objectively, the parties had not agreed on the manner in which the $700,000 was to be characterised or paid. Both sides had treated that issue as non-negotiable; the plaintiff's later subjective willingness to accept the defendants' position was not communicated; and the defendants' silence after receiving a draft deed repeating the plaintiff's position could not create contractual assent. There was therefore no consensus on all terms, making it unnecessary to decide which Masters v Cameron category applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Proceedings to Enforce an Alleged Contract Settling Disputes Among the Parties / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
No concluded agreement; plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['offer and Acceptance' 'whether Concluded Contract' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'agreements Contemplating Execution of Formal Documents' 'settlement Agreements']
['contract Law' 'equity'] ['offer and Acceptance' 'whether Concluded Contract' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'agreements Contemplating Execution of Formal Documents' 'settlement 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

Proceedings to Enforce an Alleged Contract Settling Disputes Among the Parties / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether correspondence between the parties' solicitors in August 2005 gave rise to a concluded agreement settling the parties' disputes." 'Whether the parties had reached consensus on all essential terms, including the characterisation or break up of the $700,000 payment.' 'If there was consensus, whether the parties intended to be bound before execution of final documentation under the categories in Masters v Cameron.']

Ratio Decidendi

No concluded agreement arose because, objectively, the parties had not agreed on the manner in which the $700,000 was to be characterised or paid. Both sides had treated that issue as non-negotiable; the plaintiff's later subjective willingness to accept the defendants' position was not communicated; and the defendants' silence after receiving a draft deed repeating the plaintiff's position could not create contractual assent. There was therefore no consensus on all terms, making it unnecessary to decide which Masters v Cameron category applied.

Court Disposition

No concluded agreement; plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's claim must be dismissed."]