Daisy v (1) Dale and (2) Dalton [2013] DIFC SCT 004 (22 July 2013)

Daisy v (1) Dale and (2) Dalton [2013] DIFC SCT 004 (22 July 2013)

The contract of sale was not performed as the car was sold to a third party, making performance impossible; thus, the Claimant is entitled to terminate the contract and receive a refund of the deposit under DIFC Contract Law No. 6 of 2004.

Citation
[2013] DIFC SCT 004
Parties
Claimant: Daisy; Defendant: Dale; Defendant: Dalton
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
22 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Deposit Refund, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Sale of Goods Deposit Refund Breach 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daisy

Claimant

Dale

Defendant

Dalton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of the deposit after the Defendants sold the car to a third party
  2. 2 Whether the contract of sale was performed or breached

Ratio Decidendi

The contract of sale was not performed as the car was sold to a third party, making performance impossible; thus, the Claimant is entitled to terminate the contract and receive a refund of the deposit under DIFC Contract Law No. 6 of 2004.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Defendants to refund the Claimant AED 10,000 deposit
  • Defendants to pay Court fees of the claim