Husser v Larue (CS 25/1993) [1998] SCSC 6 (17 June 1998)

Husser v Larue (CS 25/1993) [1998] SCSC 6 (17 June 1998)

The court found that the funds transferred after October 1991 were not gifts but consideration for the plaintiff's participation in the guest house project, forming a binding contract. The defendant breached the contract by selling the guest house, making performance impossible, and is therefore liable to refund the plaintiff's contribution, less the amount attributable to board and lodging. The plaintiff is entitled to restitution but not moral damages.

Citation
[1998] SCSC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Michel Husser; Defendant: Larue
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
17 June 1998
Case Number
CS 25/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Retrial on Remittal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant found in breach of contract and ordered to refund funds with interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Restitution, Implied Terms, Foreign Investment, Immovable Property Restrictions
Source Language
English
Contract Law Breach of Contract Restitution Implied Terms Foreign Investment Immovable Property Restrictions

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michel Husser

Plaintiff

Larue

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Retrial on Remittal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the funds transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant were gifts or consideration for participation in a guest house project
  2. 2 Whether a binding contract existed between the parties for the plaintiff's participation in the guest house project
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the contract by selling the guest house and thereby making performance impossible

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the funds transferred after October 1991 were not gifts but consideration for the plaintiff's participation in the guest house project, forming a binding contract. The defendant breached the contract by selling the guest house, making performance impossible, and is therefore liable to refund the plaintiff's contribution, less the amount attributable to board and lodging. The plaintiff is entitled to restitution but not moral damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant found in breach of contract and ordered to refund funds with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff Seychelles Rupees 21,000 multiplied by 3.5839 (exchange rate) with interest and costs.
  • No award for moral damages.