PARKER V. WILLIAMS

PARKER V. WILLIAMS

The bill of sale and the second (or third) mortgage were intended merely to provide temporary security for the loan of £1,500 pending the exercise by the plaintiff of the option to purchase the plant. Upon exercise of the option, the loan transaction came to an end and thereafter the rights and obligations of the parties were governed by the option agreement. The agreement was not intended to provide the plaintiff with security for the repayment of money lent but was in accordance with its terms—namely, an option to purchase. The Moneylenders & Infants Loans Act had no significance, and there was no clog or invalid collateral advantage. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to specific...

Parties
Applicant: Parker; Respondent: Williams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 1962
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Option to Purchase, Moneylending Transaction, Security Interest, Clog on Equity of Redemption, Repurchase Option
Contract Law Property Law Equity Specific Performance Option to Purchase Moneylending Transaction Security Interest Clog on Equity of Redemption +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parker

Applicant

Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale arose out of an unenforceable moneylending transaction
  2. 2 Whether the option agreement constituted a clog on the equity of redemption and was thus unenforceable in equity
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Section 22 of the Moneylenders & Infants Loans Act rendered the contract unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The bill of sale and the second (or third) mortgage were intended merely to provide temporary security for the loan of £1,500 pending the exercise by the plaintiff of the option to purchase the plant. Upon exercise of the option, the loan transaction came to an end and thereafter the rights and obligations of the parties were governed by the option agreement. The agreement was not intended to provide the plaintiff with security for the repayment of money lent but was in accordance with its terms—namely, an option to purchase. The Moneylenders & Infants Loans Act had no significance, and there was no clog or invalid collateral advantage. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to specific...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Plaintiff entitled to specific performance of the contract for the sale of land