Cedras and another vs Isaac (Civil Side No: 161 of 2007) [2013] SCSC 12 (18 February 2013)

Cedras and another vs Isaac (Civil Side No: 161 of 2007) [2013] SCSC 12 (18 February 2013)

The promise of sale was valid and binding but was lawfully revoked by the defendant. Upon such revocation, the plaintiffs are entitled only to recover double the deposit paid, not specific performance. The lease agreement was terminated by novation upon execution of the promise of sale. The plaintiffs committed no unlawful acts and are not liable for damages under the counterclaim.

Citation
[2013] SCSC 12
Parties
Plaintiff: Brian Cedras; Plaintiff: Marie-Helene Cedras; Defendant: M. Isaac
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 February 2013
Case Number
Civil Side No: 161 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiffs in part, counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Promise of Sale, Lease Agreement, Damages, Rescission
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Promise of Sale Lease Agreement Damages Rescission

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Cedras

Plaintiff

Marie-Helene Cedras

Plaintiff

M. Isaac

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity and binding nature of the promise of sale dated 28th February 2006
  2. 2 Legal effect of the promise of sale on the prior lease agreement
  3. 3 Right of unilateral revocation of the promise of sale by the promisor

Ratio Decidendi

The promise of sale was valid and binding but was lawfully revoked by the defendant. Upon such revocation, the plaintiffs are entitled only to recover double the deposit paid, not specific performance. The lease agreement was terminated by novation upon execution of the promise of sale. The plaintiffs committed no unlawful acts and are not liable for damages under the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiffs in part, counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Promise of sale dated 28th February 2006 rescinded as a nullity due to unilateral withdrawal by defendant.
  • Defendant ordered to return double the deposit (Rs100,000) to plaintiffs with interest at 4% per annum from 28th February 2006 until full repayment.