Clifton v Coffey [1924] HCA 35

Clifton v Coffey [1924] HCA 35

The advance of £6,800 by Resch's Ltd. was an essential circumstance and a fundamental term of the contract; when that condition failed because Resch's Ltd. declined to advance the money, the purchaser was entitled to recover the deposit.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Charles Clifton; Respondent: Thomas Coffey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 1924
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of Contract, Condition Precedent, Purchase of Lease, Right to Recover Deposit, Financing Conditions
Contract Law Construction of Contract Condition Precedent Purchase of Lease Right to Recover Deposit Financing Conditions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Charles Clifton

Appellant

Thomas Coffey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser was entitled to recover the deposit upon refusal of the named lender to advance finance under the contract for sale of a hotel lease and associated assets.
  2. 2 Whether the reference to finance being advanced by Resch's Ltd. constituted a fundamental term or condition precedent.

Ratio Decidendi

The advance of £6,800 by Resch's Ltd. was an essential circumstance and a fundamental term of the contract; when that condition failed because Resch's Ltd. declined to advance the money, the purchaser was entitled to recover the deposit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.