The defence of hardship to specific performance actions


Autoria(s): Duncan, Bill
Data(s)

01/04/2014

Resumo

The decision of Evans v Robcorp Pty Ltd[2014] QSC 26 is of interest as being an instance where the defence of hardship, in this case, financial hardship, was successfully pleaded in defence to a summary application for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. Equity has always recognised the defence of hardship in response to an action for specific performance which, as an equitable remedy, might be refused in the discretion of the Court (Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 664). However, whilst the remedy is discretionary, there are certain accepted principles which have guided the courts in their application of this defence to particular facts. It is not a blanket defence to a claim for specific performance where the buyer simply does not have the funds to complete the contract at the time when settlement is called for. Occasionally, a radical change in, say for instance, the health of the defendant between contract and completion, perhaps coupled with a long delay by a seller in calling for completion not being the fault of the buyer might enliven the defence (Patel v Ali [1984]1 Ch 283)

Formato

application/pdf

Identificador

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/78273/

Publicador

Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Relação

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/78273/1/PSC_Duncan_Defence_of_hardship_doc.pdf

http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/en-au/products/australian-property-law-bulletin.page

Duncan, Bill (2014) The defence of hardship to specific performance actions. Australian Property Law Bulletin, 29(3), pp. 55-56.

Direitos

Copyright 2014 Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Fonte

Commercial & Property Law Research Centre; Faculty of Law; School of Law

Palavras-Chave #180105 Commercial and Contract Law #180124 Property Law (excl. Intellectual Property Law) #defence of hardship #contract law #property law
Tipo

Journal Article