17 Oct 2006
MANA AND JURY V FLEMING HC WHA CIV.2005-488-347
- Citation
- openlaw-ac3bf313_1470_47f0_84d6_9393052b36ec.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Objectively assessed, the defendants did not take all reasonable steps to obtain an unconditional sale by the deadline because their covert/silent marketing, refusal to permit advertising, open homes and fuller agent marketing unreasonably limited the pool of prospective buyers; therefore vendor lawfully cancelled and re‑sold, and is entitled to damages equal to the net difference between contractual purchase price and bona fide resale (with GST adjustments), plus advertising costs and contractual late interest from the settlement notice date to resale settlement.