Monica Kiely (nee Phelan) v Ronald Delaney and Patricia Delaney [2012] IESC 41 (10 July 2012)

Monica Kiely (nee Phelan) v Ronald Delaney and Patricia Delaney [2012] IESC 41 (10 July 2012)

The appellant did not validly invoke the right to rescind the contract because her conduct was unreasonable, involving delay, shifting positions, and avoidance of arbitration, and the respondents were willing to complete the sale with compensation for the absence of the right of way. The vendor's imprudence in offering the land with a right of way that did not exist, and her subsequent conduct, barred her from rescinding the contract under condition 18.

Citation
[2012] IESC 41
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Monica Kiely (nee Phelan); Defendant/respondent: Ronald Delaney; Defendant/respondent: Patricia Delaney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (vendor and Purchaser Act, Special Summons) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vendor and Purchaser, Right of Way, Rescission of Contract, Conveyancing Practice, Compensation for Error
Property Law Contract Law Vendor and Purchaser Right of Way Rescission of Contract Conveyancing Practice Compensation for Error

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Kiely (nee Phelan)

Plaintiff/appellant

Ronald Delaney

Defendant/respondent

Patricia Delaney

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (vendor and Purchaser Act, Special Summons) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor validly rescinded the contract for sale under condition 18 of the Law Society of Ireland General Conditions of Sale (2001 edition)
  2. 2 Whether the vendor's conduct or imprudence/recklessness barred her from exercising the right to rescind
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser's claim for compensation under condition 33 precluded rescission by the vendor

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not validly invoke the right to rescind the contract because her conduct was unreasonable, involving delay, shifting positions, and avoidance of arbitration, and the respondents were willing to complete the sale with compensation for the absence of the right of way. The vendor's imprudence in offering the land with a right of way that did not exist, and her subsequent conduct, barred her from rescinding the contract under condition 18.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.