Morin v Pool & Ano. (CS 339/2010) [2017] SCSC 183 (1 March 2017)

Morin v Pool & Ano. (CS 339/2010) [2017] SCSC 183 (1 March 2017)

The Plaintiff failed to prove that the price paid was less than half the value of the property at the time of sale. The valuation relied upon by the Plaintiff was disregarded as it improperly included future development potential, contrary to Articles 1675 and 1677 of the Civil Code. The price paid fell within the accepted range of valuations for agricultural land at the time, and the Plaintiff received additional sums beyond the recorded sale price. The Plaintiff's claim for lesion and rescission fails.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 183
Parties
Plaintiff: Gaston Morin; First Defendant: John Pool; Second Defendant: Lioudmilla Etienne
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Case Number
CS 339/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's case dismissed; judgment for Defendants.
Legal Topics
Lesion, Sale of Land, Market Value, Recission of Contract
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Lesion Sale of Land Market Value Recission of Contract

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaston Morin

Plaintiff

John Pool

First Defendant

Lioudmilla Etienne

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale price was less than half the true value of the property (lesion)
  2. 2 Whether the contract of sale should be rescinded on grounds of lesion
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to re-conveyance of the property

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove that the price paid was less than half the value of the property at the time of sale. The valuation relied upon by the Plaintiff was disregarded as it improperly included future development potential, contrary to Articles 1675 and 1677 of the Civil Code. The price paid fell within the accepted range of valuations for agricultural land at the time, and the Plaintiff received additional sums beyond the recorded sale price. The Plaintiff's claim for lesion and rescission fails.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's case dismissed; judgment for Defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to vacate the property on or before 15th May 2017.
  • Registrar to issue writ habere facias possessionem if Plaintiff fails to vacate.