Blanco v Wan [2021] NSWSC 273

Blanco v Wan [2021] NSWSC 273

The plaintiff was entitled to recover the $80,000 deposit actually paid as it was a true deposit, but not the $125,500 balance, as the latter was not truly a deposit and enforcement would amount to a penalty. The contract was not unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), as the circumstances did not show inequality of bargaining power or unconscionable conduct.

Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Maxwell Blanco; Defendant: Li Wan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (sale of Land) / Principal Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded in part.
Legal Topics
Contract for Sale of Land, Deposit, Penalty Doctrine, Unjust Contract, Contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw), Termination of Contract
Equity Contract Law Land Law Contract for Sale of Land Deposit Penalty Doctrine Unjust Contract Contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw) +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Maxwell Blanco

Plaintiff

Li Wan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (sale of Land) / Principal Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale should be set aside as unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether payment of the balance of the deposit ($125,500) is a penalty and unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the paid deposit ($80,000) and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to recover the $80,000 deposit actually paid as it was a true deposit, but not the $125,500 balance, as the latter was not truly a deposit and enforcement would amount to a penalty. The contract was not unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), as the circumstances did not show inequality of bargaining power or unconscionable conduct.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that plaintiff validly terminated the contract on 2 July 2019.
  • Plaintiff entitled to recover $80,000 deposit plus interest thereon, and $330 costs for Notice to Complete.