Cooper v Ungar [1958] HCA 9

Cooper v Ungar [1958] HCA 9

Even if cl. 14 impliedly limited the vendor to reselling within a reasonable time, the facts could not support a finding that more than a reasonable time had elapsed before the June 1953 sale. The vendor had made reasonably persistent efforts to sell, and the action under cl. 14 for the £6,125 deficiency was bound to succeed. Any confusion in the jury's findings did not cause a real miscarriage because the trial judge's clear course was to direct a verdict for that sum.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning a Contract of Sale of Land / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Affirming a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['defaulting Purchaser' "vendor's Resale Power" 'forfeiture of Deposit' 'liquidated Damages' 'reasonable Time for Resale' 'jury Verdict']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'sale of Land'] ['defaulting Purchaser' "vendor's Resale Power" 'forfeiture of Deposit' 'liquidated Damages' 'reasonable Time for Resale' 'jury Verdict']

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

Civil Appeal Concerning a Contract of Sale of Land / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Affirming a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cl. 14 of the contract impliedly required the vendor to resell the property within a reasonable time before recovering a deficiency from the defaulting purchaser.' 'Whether, assuming such an implication existed, the sale in June 1953 occurred after more than a reasonable time had elapsed.' "Whether confusion in the jury's findings caused a real miscarriage of justice."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even if cl. 14 impliedly limited the vendor to reselling within a reasonable time, the facts could not support a finding that more than a reasonable time had elapsed before the June 1953 sale. The vendor had made reasonably persistent efforts to sell, and the action under cl. 14 for the £6,125 deficiency was bound to succeed. Any confusion in the jury's findings did not cause a real miscarriage because the trial judge's clear course was to direct a verdict for that sum.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']