Immer (No 145) Pty Ltd v. Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust
Article Abstract:
The Australian High Court held, in Immer (No 145) Pty Ltd v. Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust, that the duty to perform under a contract is not automatically removed by a breach of contract but the innocent party must know of the right to continue the contract and act on that knowledge. The case involved the purchase of air rights that required City Solicitor approval. Immer affirmed the contract under the mistaken belief that the approval was guaranteed and so could not be held to the affirmation once the approval was withheld based on contractual fairness and conscionable conduct.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Contrasting approaches to statutory illegality
Article Abstract:
Two cases illustrate differing court approaches to public policy aspects of illegal contracts, although both decisions upheld transferors' claims. In Tinsley v. Milligan, the House of Lords held against the public conscience test. In Nelson v. Nelson, the High Court rejected the court's arguments in Tinsley v. Milligan, and gave discretionary preference to public policy. The Defence Service Homes Act was held inapplicable to a false declaration which enabled a government subsidy for home ownership.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Beware the undertaker - solicitors' liability for undertakings
Article Abstract:
The New South Wales Supreme Court decided Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Poynton on a basis of whether the solicitor's restraint in exercising a legal right constituted good consideration. The case could have been brought as a disciplinary action before the Legal Services Commissioner or under the Fair Trading Act 1987 section 42 for misleading conduct. The court ruled that not exercising a legal right more often will cause a legal detriment and constitute good consideration.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Determining how much joint property is in a spouse's estate. Economic performance rules contain elections for real estate developers
- Abstracts: Federal bankruptcy court holds debtor's interest in s. 457 plan is property of bankruptcy estate. First case under Pension Annuity Protection Act allows participants who received Executive Life contracts to sue under ERISA
- Abstracts: Insecurity interests: where intellectual property and commercial law collide. State sovereignty and subordinacy: may Congress commandeer state officers to implement federal law?
- Abstracts: Employing ex-offenders. Part-timers gain equal access to pension schemes
- Abstracts: Confusion over consultation requirements. Consultation on new strike restrictions