MENDEL and ORS v BENJAMIN [1997] NSWCA 200

MENDEL and ORS v BENJAMIN [1997] NSWCA 200

The letter of 17 January 1996 amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer set out in the letter of 13 July 1995, giving rise to a binding contract between the parties. Suggestions for mechanics of settlement did not alter the fundamental acceptant nature of the response. The trial judge was correct that excess superannuation fund contributions and accretions on excess, but not base, contributions should be offset against the payment. Costs order was upheld since principal issue was contract formation, on which the appellants failed.

Parties
First Respondent: Peter Julius Benjamin; Cross Appellant/respondent: Chesdeed Pty Ltd; Appellant: Charles Mendel; Appellant: K Mendel Pty Ltd; Appellant: Delta Sportswear Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal allowed in part; declarations and orders substituted as to quantum.
Legal Topics
Offer and Acceptance, Construction and Interpretation, Superannuation, Costs Discretion, Accounting Services Indemnity
Contracts Equity Offer and Acceptance Construction and Interpretation Superannuation Costs Discretion Accounting Services Indemnity

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Julius Benjamin

First Respondent

Chesdeed Pty Ltd

Cross Appellant/respondent

Charles Mendel

Appellant

K Mendel Pty Ltd

Appellant

Delta Sportswear Pty Ltd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor's letter constituted acceptance of an offer and formed a binding contract
  2. 2 Proper construction of contract terms regarding settlement and payments from superannuation fund and calculation of amounts due
  3. 3 Recovery and set-off of excess superannuation fund contributions and accretions

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 17 January 1996 amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer set out in the letter of 13 July 1995, giving rise to a binding contract between the parties. Suggestions for mechanics of settlement did not alter the fundamental acceptant nature of the response. The trial judge was correct that excess superannuation fund contributions and accretions on excess, but not base, contributions should be offset against the payment. Costs order was upheld since principal issue was contract formation, on which the appellants failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal allowed in part; declarations and orders substituted as to quantum.

Orders

  • First defendant agreed to pay first plaintiff the sum of $207,859.
  • First defendant to pay first plaintiff the sum of $207,859 together with interest pursuant to s94 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.