Da Yun Xu v Fang Lin [2005] NSWSC 569

Da Yun Xu v Fang Lin [2005] NSWSC 569

The plaintiff failed on all claims because the relationship was essentially commercial, the defendant was not shown to have a relationship of trust and confidence or to have actually exercised undue influence, the plaintiff was able to judge for himself and deliberately sold at an undervalue to try to secure the defendant's affections, no special disadvantage sufficiently evident to or exploited by the defendant was established, the contract was not unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980, and the parties intended that the defendant be released from paying the stated $140,000 deposit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Sale of Land, Undue Influence, Unconscionable Conduct, Unjust Contract Relief and Unpaid Deposit Claim / Trial; Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['undue Influence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'unjust Contracts' 'sale of Land at Undervalue' 'merger on Completion' 'deposit Not Paid' 'estoppel']

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Sale of Land, Undue Influence, Unconscionable Conduct, Unjust Contract Relief and Unpaid Deposit Claim / Trial; Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether the sale of the Chatswood property by the plaintiff to the defendant was brought about by the undue influence of the defendant.' 'Whether the plaintiff was in a position of special disadvantage or disability in relation to the defendant.' "Whether the defendant unconscionably took advantage of the plaintiff's disability in relation to the sale of the Chatswood property." 'Whether the contract of sale for the Chatswood property was an unjust contract for the purposes of section 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980.' "Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of $140,000 being the purported deposit or to setting aside of the contract of sale subject to a charge in the defendant's favour for the purchase price."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed on all claims because the relationship was essentially commercial, the defendant was not shown to have a relationship of trust and confidence or to have actually exercised undue influence, the plaintiff was able to judge for himself and deliberately sold at an undervalue to try to secure the defendant's affections, no special disadvantage sufficiently evident to or exploited by the defendant was established, the contract was not unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980, and the parties intended that the defendant be released from paying the stated $140,000 deposit.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed with costs.']