C.S.S. Investments Pty Ltd v Lopiron Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 554

C.S.S. Investments Pty Ltd v Lopiron Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 554

The vendor was not entitled to rescind the contract for late registration as it had not done all that was reasonable and proper to achieve registration by the date specified and its conduct in seeking rescission was unconscionable. Equity would relieve against rescission for non-fulfilment of a non-essential term in such circumstances and order specific performance.

Parties
Appellant: C.S.S. Investments Pty. Limited; Respondent: Lopiron Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Order for damages set aside and remitted; otherwise appeal dismissed. Orders for specific performance affirmed. Vendor to pay respondent's costs of appeal.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rescission of Contract, Vendor and Purchaser, Unconscionable Conduct, Waiver
Equity Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Rescission of Contract Vendor and Purchaser Unconscionable Conduct Waiver

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 3 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.S.S. Investments Pty. Limited

Appellant

Lopiron Pty. Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor (C.S.S.) was entitled to rescind the contract for sale for failure to register the units plan by the specified date.
  2. 2 Whether equitable relief (specific performance) should be granted despite vendor's purported rescission.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the vendor was unconscionable such that rescission should be denied.

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor was not entitled to rescind the contract for late registration as it had not done all that was reasonable and proper to achieve registration by the date specified and its conduct in seeking rescission was unconscionable. Equity would relieve against rescission for non-fulfilment of a non-essential term in such circumstances and order specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Order for damages set aside and remitted; otherwise appeal dismissed. Orders for specific performance affirmed. Vendor to pay respondent's costs of appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed for the purpose of deleting from the order under appeal the order that there be judgment for the plaintiff for damages for breach of contract to be assessed.
  • The issue as to damages be remitted to the trial judge.