22 Jul 2011
FINZCO LIMITED V MATHEWS HC WN CIV-2011-485-1380
- Citation
- openlaw-a9a18fc5_83c3_481c_bd2b_3bbd696862f4.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The plaintiff failed to show a serious question to be tried that a binding oral contract existed because the evidence disclosed at best a conditional arrangement lacking an agreed time for satisfaction of the condition (finance) and the implication of necessary terms could not be justified; in addition there was no evidence that specific performance would be appropriate (no showing that quota was unique or unavailable on the market); the balance of convenience favoured defendants because they had contracted with a third party and a caveat would prejudice that purchaser; therefore the Court di…