Sparway Pty Ltd v Lakkis [2017] NSWSC 1465

Sparway Pty Ltd v Lakkis [2017] NSWSC 1465

Viewing the circumstances objectively and in light of the totality of the evidence, no binding agreement was made on 10 February 2017 because any apparent consensus was qualified by Mr Lakkis' stipulation that he would not make a final decision until he had discussed the matter with Mr Hayek. The defendant's agreement to the deal was not unqualified or unconditional, so the plaintiff failed to prove acceptance of its offer and failed to establish the alleged binding agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Seeking a Declaration of a Binding Agreement to Vary a Lease and Specific Performance / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Statement of Claim dismissed; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['formation of Contract' 'oral Contract' 'variation of Lease' 'specific Performance' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), Ss 23 C and 54 A']
['contracts' 'leases and Tenancies' 'equity'] ['formation of Contract' 'oral Contract' 'variation of Lease' 'specific Performance' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), Ss 23 C and 54 A']

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

Equity Proceedings Seeking a Declaration of a Binding Agreement to Vary a Lease and Specific Performance / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a binding agreement was reached on 10 February 2017 as alleged by the plaintiff' 'If a binding agreement was reached, whether s 23C of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) operated to deny efficacy to, or preclude enforcement of, the agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

Viewing the circumstances objectively and in light of the totality of the evidence, no binding agreement was made on 10 February 2017 because any apparent consensus was qualified by Mr Lakkis' stipulation that he would not make a final decision until he had discussed the matter with Mr Hayek. The defendant's agreement to the deal was not unqualified or unconditional, so the plaintiff failed to prove acceptance of its offer and failed to establish the alleged binding agreement.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim dismissed; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Statement of Claim is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings."]