Bennett v Strauss [2016] NSWCA 324

Bennett v Strauss [2016] NSWCA 324

The appeal failed because, on the primary judge's findings, Lara did not purport or profess to make a concluded contract with Mr Bennett on behalf of Mrs Strauss and did not represent that she was acting with Mrs Strauss's authority. Her conduct was no more than undertaking to promote with her mother the proposed sale on terms settled between Lara and Mr Bennett. As there was no contract avowedly made by Lara for Mrs Strauss, there was nothing to which Mrs Strauss's later receipts could impart contractual efficacy by ratification.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Alleged Oral Contract for Sale and Purchase of an Interest in Land and Whether the Alleged Vendor Became Bound Through Agency and Ratification / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, [2016] NSWSC 262, in Which Mr Bennett's Claims Were Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['formation of Contract' 'principal and Agent' 'ratification' 'sale of Interest in Land' 'part Performance' 'oral Contract']
['contract Law' 'agency' 'equity' 'real Property'] ['formation of Contract' 'principal and Agent' 'ratification' 'sale of Interest in Land' 'part Performance' 'oral Contract']

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

Appeal Concerning Alleged Oral Contract for Sale and Purchase of an Interest in Land and Whether the Alleged Vendor Became Bound Through Agency and Ratification / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, [2016] NSWSC 262, in Which Mr Bennett's Claims Were Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Lara purportedly or professedly made a concluded contract with Mr Bennett on behalf of Mrs Strauss for the sale of Mrs Strauss's one-tenth interest in Lot 16." "Whether Mrs Strauss's subsequent provision of two receipts for money paid by Mr Bennett constituted ratification of any contract allegedly made by Lara on her behalf." 'Whether ratification was available where the primary judge found that Lara did not say she was acting for Mrs Strauss and that any dealings with Mr Bennett were not contractual conduct on behalf of Mrs Strauss.' 'Whether Mrs Strauss had full knowledge of all material circumstances necessary for ratification.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because, on the primary judge's findings, Lara did not purport or profess to make a concluded contract with Mr Bennett on behalf of Mrs Strauss and did not represent that she was acting with Mrs Strauss's authority. Her conduct was no more than undertaking to promote with her mother the proposed sale on terms settled between Lara and Mr Bennett. As there was no contract avowedly made by Lara for Mrs Strauss, there was nothing to which Mrs Strauss's later receipts could impart contractual efficacy by ratification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal."]