Dickinson v Crisp [2008] NSWDC 296

Dickinson v Crisp [2008] NSWDC 296

On the balance of probabilities, the August 2006 telephone calls and transmission of the loan agreement were by Crisp or on his behalf; Dickinson accepted the proposed written terms by signing the agreement and depositing $100,000, and Crisp accepted and used the money, so Crisp was bound by the written loan agreement despite not signing it. The written agreement was the whole agreement, fixed interest at 0%, and superseded prior communications, so there was no collateral oral agreement to pay $30,000. If restitution had been necessary, Crisp did not establish a change of position defence because he used the funds for his own benefit, his later payment to Stretton was irrelevant, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim in Contract And, Alternatively, Restitution / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
['collateral Contract' 'recovery of Money Paid Under Mistake' 'unjust Enrichment' 'change of Position Defence' 'formation of Contract' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']
['contract Law' 'restitution'] ['collateral Contract' 'recovery of Money Paid Under Mistake' 'unjust Enrichment' 'change of Position Defence' 'formation of Contract' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']

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

Civil Claim in Contract And, Alternatively, Restitution / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did Crisp contract with Dickinson, depending on whether Crisp sent the loan agreement to Dickinson?' 'Was there a collateral oral agreement to pay $30,000?' 'Does Crisp have a defence to the claim for restitution?']

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the August 2006 telephone calls and transmission of the loan agreement were by Crisp or on his behalf; Dickinson accepted the proposed written terms by signing the agreement and depositing $100,000, and Crisp accepted and used the money, so Crisp was bound by the written loan agreement despite not signing it. The written agreement was the whole agreement, fixed interest at 0%, and superseded prior communications, so there was no collateral oral agreement to pay $30,000. If restitution had been necessary, Crisp did not establish a change of position defence because he used the funds for his own benefit, his later payment to Stretton was irrelevant, and the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Verdict for Dickinson and judgment in the sum of $117,950.82 ($100,000 plus 10% interest from 23 February 2007).']