'Cases Research\r'

'* get the hang v Cameron (1954) * Estate cistron retained by Cameron drew up a barter mark off for the exchange of Cameron’s space to superiors. * Cameron’s instancy included in the sale none a clause. * Agreement made field to the preparation of a formal centralise of sale, which shall be acceptable to headcounters on the supra terms and conditions. * Both parties signed the sale note. * Masters stipendiary a deposit. * Masters did not signed the buzz off prep atomic number 18d by Cameron’s solicitors as Master experienced difficulties arranging necessary finance and wished to withdraw the purchase. Cameron wished to proceed the sale. * The move consecrate to decide whether the parties were contractually bound by the sale note(which has been signed by two of them) or whether they would only have make a medical dressing contract by Cameron’s solicitors(which could not apply, since Masters did not signed. * Souter v Shyamba Pty Ltd (2 003) * Shyamba owned land at Merimbula, NSW on which it operated a hotel and motel. * 8 October 2001, Souter wrote to Shyamba enquiring whether the property was for sale and one Bennett, a conductor of Shyamba, telephoned Souter and told him that the price was $3 billion. Negotiations at spurn figures failed. * Fresh negotiations in March and April 2002 resulted a signed document by Souter and by Bennett and one Mirabito on behalf of Shyamba. * The document provided that â€Å"This sale will become unconditional upon the emptor paying the union of $1,000 into the vendor’s bank theme. The purchaser agrees to pay a further $299,000 to the vendor’s solicitor upon exchange of contracts, not later than 16 June 2002 and the balance ($2,700,00) at settlement 1 July 2002. On 1 may 2002, Souter paid $1,000 unto the vendor’s bank account and Shyamba instructed its solicitors to prepare formal contracts. * On 31 May 2002, Bennett wrote to Souter, stating that the sale had â€Å"hit a hurdle in the form of a huge Gazzumpt”. * Bennett Stated that he had been communicate that the agreement of 1 May did not bind the purchaser and could not so bind Shyamba as vendor. * Souter sued for limited exploit of the agreement dated 1 May 2002. The court held that the document dated 1 May 2002 did not constitute the binding contract and made an order for specific performance. * The enounce held that the decisive issue is incessantly the intention of the parties, which must be objectively ascertained from the terms of the document when study in the light of the surrounding circumstances. * If the terms of the document indicate that the parties intend to be bound immediately, effect must be given to that intention irrespective of the landing field matter, magnitude or complexity of the transaction. * The judge itemised the reasons for his finding that the document had the effect of a contract. * Instrument 7020202154 v Ormlie Trading Pty Ltd * The court held that the parties had no intention of entering into a binding contract of sale patronage reaching agreement on the all important(p) terms. * In both the letter of unfold and in the letter of acceptance of the press the rule books â€Å"in principle” were used. * The word â€Å"in principle” used was indicated and clumsy acceptance by the sufferee of the offer. Teviot Downs Estate Pty Ltd & angstrom unit; Anor v MTAA Superannuation Fund (Flagstone brook and jumpstart Mountain Park) Property Pty Ltd * say agreement made on 29 majestic 2003 for the sale of land of Spring Mountain Estate, Beaudesert in Queensland for $11m. * Teviot sent a letter of offer to the defendant on 22 August 2003 and a reply accepting the offer was sent on 29 August. * Deposit of $1. 1 million was paid. * 3 October 2003, the firstnamed plantiff wrote to the defendant maxim that its imputable diligence enquiries had been satisfactorily completed and that the contract was unconditional. On the same day, defendant wrote to Tevoit saying that its Trustee did not approve of the sale. * The lordly Court of Queensland has to decide whether the exchange of proportion (the letter of offer of 22 August and the letter of acceptance of 29 August) constituted a legally enforceable agreement (as the defendant contended). * The court observed that the effect suggest that at that place is no binding contract unless and until formal contact documents are signed and exchanged. * Tinn v Hoffman and CO (1873) twain offers, identical in terms, cross in the post, there will be no contract as neither screw be construed as an acceptance of the other, nevertheless though there is a contact of the minds. * Patterson v Dolman (1908) * The offer may be construed by the court as being accepted by a number of mortals and the offeror will be bound to each and every person who accept. * The contract is only able to be performed with one party, the offeror may be liable in damages for crack of contract to the others who accepted the offer. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) * An uncle and his nephew had communion close the possible sale of the nephew’s horse to the uncle, but there had been close to confusion about the price. * The uncle subsequently wrote to nephew, crack to pay $30 and 15 shillings and saying, ‘If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at that price. * The nephew was on the point of merchandising off some of his property in an auction. He did not reply the uncle’s letter, but did tell the auctioneer to forbear the horse out of the sale. The auctioneer forgot to do this and the horse was sold. * The court felt that the nephew’s conduct in trying to persist the horse out of the sale did not necessarily imply that he intended to accept his uncle offer. * The nephew actually wrote afterwards to defend for the mistake and so it was not put right that his silence in response to the offer was int end to sell but there are many situations in which it would be undesirable and confusing for silence to amount to acceptance.\r\n'