Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Specific Performance (sale of land (what makes a letter valid…

- - - - Supermacs v Katesan only the material terms need to be included all must be agreed - be in writing and signed by the parties
      - Shirley Engineering what is essential is determined by parties themselves (deposit)
    - - agreement (fact
      - can't be oral for land
      - doctrine of part performance
      - intention to create legal relations
  - - - Boyle v Lee if term 'subject to contract included, letter ceases to be a valid letter
      - Supermacs v Katesan use of the phrase subject to contact does not preclude existence of a done deal
      - if just thrown in look at its place
      - Shirley engineering not as effective in oral contracts
      - O'Connor v Elliot precision of words important 'without prejudice insufficient
- - - - obiter dicta - looking for intention to perform agreement
      - would it be unconscionable to allow defendant to rely on statute of frauds to prevent performance
    - - Starling Securities v Wood entries onto defendants land and demolition of buildings are pretty good evidence for part performance
      - Steadman v Steadman ruling out money as part performance would seem to defeat the doctrine
      - Joan v FitzGeraldnegotiation of a loan not part performance
      - Prendaville v Gabo Holdings acts of part performance present when plaintiffs had input in choosing tiles in new home - developers made changes to property - plaintiffs had given defendants sole agency to sell house
      - Price v Keenaghan developments discussion about modifications to the house, still in negotiation, no concluded agreement (at a minimum there needs to be oral agreement)
- - - - Ryan v Mutual Tontine porter constantly in attendance - failed would need constant supervision
      - Posner v Scott Lewis shouldn't be a decisive factor if precisely defined and fairest remedy
      - Williamson v Mullholand specific performance is inapplicable when it requires continued supervision
    - - Warner Bros v Nelson contract to work exclusively for 5 years, wanted to work in London, WB sought to enforce injunction - the negative part - successful - can't make movies for someone else can still do other things (modelling)
      - Lonely v Wagner negative covenant enforced (opera singer)
      - Page one Records v Britton manager sacked, not mutually enforceable - can't grant specific performance (if roles were reversed they couldn't do it)
      - Pandoro ferry services, dislike forcing employer to employ work force has misgivings about