Petelin v Cullen [1975] HCA 24

Petelin v Cullen [1975] HCA 24

Where a signatory, unable to read the relevant language and relying on the counterparty's agent for explanation, signs a document under a misapprehension as to its character (believing it to be a receipt, not an extension of option), and where the counterparty is not an innocent party, the defence of non est factum is made out and is not barred by carelessness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'non Est Factum (defence)']
['contract Law'] ['specific Performance' 'non Est Factum (defence)']

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 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence of non est factum was available to the appellant in respect of the extension of the option document.' "Whether the appellant's failure to take reasonable precautions amounted to carelessness precluding the non est factum defence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Where a signatory, unable to read the relevant language and relying on the counterparty's agent for explanation, signs a document under a misapprehension as to its character (believing it to be a receipt, not an extension of option), and where the counterparty is not an innocent party, the defence of non est factum is made out and is not barred by carelessness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal Division, set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.']