Wallace v Hermans [1974] HCA 42

Wallace v Hermans [1974] HCA 42

The High Court held that the vendor’s right to rescind was not lost, as there was no evidence that either the respondent or her solicitors had knowledge of the planning provisions affecting the property prior to June 1973. Mere acts of affirmation, absent such knowledge, do not amount to an election to affirm the contract or waive the right to rescind.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['rescission of Contract' 'town Planning Certificates' 'annexure of Planning Certificates' 'election to Affirm Contract']
['contract Law' 'property Law'] ['rescission of Contract' 'town Planning Certificates' 'annexure of Planning Certificates' 'election to Affirm Contract']

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 / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the vendor validly rescinded the contract of sale due to failure to annex planning certificates disclosing town planning provisions affecting the land.' 'Whether the vendor, through acts or knowledge, lost the right of rescission by election or affirmation of the contract.']

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the vendor’s right to rescind was not lost, as there was no evidence that either the respondent or her solicitors had knowledge of the planning provisions affecting the property prior to June 1973. Mere acts of affirmation, absent such knowledge, do not amount to an election to affirm the contract or waive the right to rescind.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']