Ebadeh-Ahvazi v Namrood [2017] NSWSC 399

Ebadeh-Ahvazi v Namrood [2017] NSWSC 399

The defendant did not validly terminate the contract because the plaintiff's obligations to perform work under cl 11.1 and the additional special condition were required by actual completion, not by the contract-stipulated completion date. Therefore, the Notice to Perform was not properly issued and termination based thereon was invalid. The plaintiff validly terminated the contract after issuing a valid Notice to Complete in circumstances where he was ready, willing, and able to comply with his obligations, which had by then been performed. The plaintiff became entitled to forfeit the deposit. No misleading or deceptive conduct causing actionable loss was established, nor was the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Contract for Sale of Land, Equity Proceedings / Principal Judgment, Final Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff vendor entitled to the deposit; defendant's cross-claim dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs.
Legal Topics
['contract for Sale of Land' 'termination of Contract' 'notices to Perform and Complete' 'vendor Obligations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['conveyancing' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['contract for Sale of Land' 'termination of Contract' 'notices to Perform and Complete' 'vendor Obligations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Contract for Sale of Land, Equity Proceedings / Principal Judgment, Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant validly terminated the contract on 29 July 2015' 'Whether the plaintiff validly terminated the contract on 19 October 2015' 'Was the defendant entitled to the return of the deposit or damages' 'Did the plaintiff engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 ACL' 'Should the deposit be returned under s 55(2A) of the Conveyancing Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not validly terminate the contract because the plaintiff's obligations to perform work under cl 11.1 and the additional special condition were required by actual completion, not by the contract-stipulated completion date. Therefore, the Notice to Perform was not properly issued and termination based thereon was invalid. The plaintiff validly terminated the contract after issuing a valid Notice to Complete in circumstances where he was ready, willing, and able to comply with his obligations, which had by then been performed. The plaintiff became entitled to forfeit the deposit. No misleading or deceptive conduct causing actionable loss was established, nor was the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff vendor entitled to the deposit; defendant's cross-claim dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs.

Orders

  • ['Funds paid into Court may be withdrawn by the plaintiff.' "Defendant's cross-claim dismissed." "Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]