Eilwyn v Eimear [2014] DIFC SCT 011 (06 May 2014)

The Buyer defaulted by failing to execute the transfer by the Transfer Date, triggering Clause 9 of the MOU, entitling the Claimant to 20% of the deposit and the Defendant to 80%.

Citation: [2014] DIFC SCT 011
Parties: Claimant: Eilwyn; Defendant: Eimear
Jurisdiction: United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date: 06 May 2014
Procedural Posture: Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome: Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics: Memorandum of Understanding, Deposit Forfeiture, Default by Buyer, Jurisdiction Agreement

Contract Law Property Law Memorandum of Understanding Deposit Forfeiture Default by Buyer Jurisdiction Agreement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Eilwyn

Claimant

Eimear

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to 20% of the forfeited deposit as per the MOU
2 Whether the Buyer defaulted under the MOU
3 Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Buyer defaulted by failing to execute the transfer by the Transfer Date, triggering Clause 9 of the MOU, entitling the Claimant to 20% of the deposit and the Defendant to 80%.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

Defendant to pay Claimant AED 94,434.42, comprising AED 92,000 (20% of deposit) and AED 2,432.42 (50% of Claimant's court fees)