Vickers v Taccone [2005] NSWSC 514

Vickers v Taccone [2005] NSWSC 514

The third defendant (agent) did not make to the first and second defendants the representation alleged; neither did the plaintiff. Even if a representation was made, there was no relevant reliance by the first and second defendants on it in entering into the contract, as they relied on their own enquiries at Council. Accordingly, the first and second defendants were not entitled to rescind the contract or recover their deposit. The plaintiff was entitled to terminate the contract for non-completion and is entitled to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; first and second defendants did not validly rescind contract, are not entitled to return of deposit and are liable in damages; claims against third defendant dismissed; cross claims by first and second defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
['fraudulent and Innocent Misrepresentation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'real Estate Transactions' 'contract Rescission' 'damages']
['equity'] ['fraudulent and Innocent Misrepresentation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'real Estate Transactions' 'contract Rescission' 'damages']

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 / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether third defendant (agent) made to the first and second defendants the representation that the land could be developed by erection of four villas;' 'Whether the plaintiff made such representation;' 'Whether the representation was untrue;' 'Whether first and second defendants relied on any such representation in entering into the contract;' 'Whether first and second defendants were entitled to rescind the contract;' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the contract;' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages against the first and second defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The third defendant (agent) did not make to the first and second defendants the representation alleged; neither did the plaintiff. Even if a representation was made, there was no relevant reliance by the first and second defendants on it in entering into the contract, as they relied on their own enquiries at Council. Accordingly, the first and second defendants were not entitled to rescind the contract or recover their deposit. The plaintiff was entitled to terminate the contract for non-completion and is entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; first and second defendants did not validly rescind contract, are not entitled to return of deposit and are liable in damages; claims against third defendant dismissed; cross claims by first and second defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • ["First and second defendants' claim to rescind contract and recover deposit dismissed." 'Plaintiff entitled to damages against first and second defendants for breach in failing to complete the contract and purporting to rescind.' 'Claims against the third defendant dismissed.' 'First cross claim by first and second...