Lu & Anor v Boral Australian Gypsum Ltd [2003] NSWSC 127

Lu & Anor v Boral Australian Gypsum Ltd [2003] NSWSC 127

The magistrate's findings that the appellants understood the guarantee, that the contract was not unjust, and that neither unconscionable conduct nor non est factum defences were established, were open on the evidence, and as no question of law arose, the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Xia Ping Lu; Appellant: Vasily Belomesoff; Respondent: Boral Australian Gypsum Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjust Contracts, Guarantees, Unconscionable Conduct, Non Est Factum
Contract Law Civil Procedure Unjust Contracts Guarantees Unconscionable Conduct Non Est Factum

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xia Ping Lu

Appellant

Vasily Belomesoff

Appellant

Boral Australian Gypsum Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee signed by the appellants was unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether there was unconscionable conduct by Boral
  3. 3 Whether the defence of non est factum was made out

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's findings that the appellants understood the guarantee, that the contract was not unjust, and that neither unconscionable conduct nor non est factum defences were established, were open on the evidence, and as no question of law arose, the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed