Jerome v Ward [1915] HCA 77

Jerome v Ward [1915] HCA 77

The plaintiff was induced to sign the contract and pay a deposit by the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation about the purchase price and the reason for the contract’s form. The plaintiff acted within a reasonable time to disaffirm once aware of the truth and was entitled to recover his deposit.

Parties
Plaintiff: Hugh Joseph Ward; Defendant: Armand Jerome
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Principal and Agent, Vendor and Purchaser, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission, Recovery of Deposit

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Joseph Ward

Plaintiff

Armand Jerome

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

  1. 1 Was the plaintiff entitled to rescind the contract of sale and recover his deposit due to fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendant?
  2. 2 Did the defendant (or his agent) make fraudulent representations regarding the price paid for the property?
  3. 3 Did the plaintiff repudiate the contract within a reasonable time after discovering the true facts?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was induced to sign the contract and pay a deposit by the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation about the purchase price and the reason for the contract’s form. The plaintiff acted within a reasonable time to disaffirm once aware of the truth and was entitled to recover his deposit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to rescind the contract and recover deposit.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.