ARMSTRONG V. CAPPER

ARMSTRONG V. CAPPER

The agreement, as written and construed as a whole, constituted a binding and concluded contract for sale; the phrase referring to Mr. Smith meant only that the land description was to be compared or confirmed, not that the transaction was conditional on his approval. The agreement was sufficiently certain. Specific performance was rightly ordered.

Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Capper; Defendant: Ken Armstrong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 1954
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Formation of Contract, Certainty of Terms
Contract Law Equity Specific Performance Formation of Contract Certainty of Terms

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Capper

Plaintiff

Ken Armstrong

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the document constituted a binding agreement for sale of land or was conditional/provisional only
  2. 2 Whether the document was too vague/incomplete to be a contract
  3. 3 Whether specific performance should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement, as written and construed as a whole, constituted a binding and concluded contract for sale; the phrase referring to Mr. Smith meant only that the land description was to be compared or confirmed, not that the transaction was conditional on his approval. The agreement was sufficiently certain. Specific performance was rightly ordered.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs