Assessment Item 1
Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision
Peter Smythe v Vincent Thomas (2007) NSW SC 844 (3 August 2007)
Part A
Question 1
The case was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Equity Division.
Question 2
The name of the judge was Nigel Rein
Nigel Rein was an Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW (Equity Division).
Question 3
Plaintiff is: Peter Smythe
Council for the Plaintiff is: B Kasep
Defendant is: Vincent Thomas
Council for the Defendant is: DM Lowenstein
Question 4
The particular circumstances which led Acting Judge Rein to doubt the credibility of the defendant’s version of events is noted in the judgement under 18(3) by no mention of an offer of $150000 being made by the…show more content… In case of acceptance Tom intended to be bound to the offer. The offer was communicated to Dick and he was aware of it. Offer was rejected. An oral counter offer was made by Dick to Tom. The offer was communicated and Tom was aware of it. Tom rejected this offer. The sale to Harry is a valid contract constituting the essential elements of an agreement; offer and acceptance, intention, consideration, capacity, genuine consent and legality. The following conclusion can be drawn: Tom made an offer to sell his bike to Dick which was not accepted. A counter offer by Dick was rejected by Tom. Therefore no agreement has been reached between Tom and Dick. Subsequently Tom is able to deal with the bike as he wishes and he has reached an agreement with Harry regarding the sale of his bike.
Question 2
For any agreement to be legally binding, the parties must have mutually intended for such to be recognised by the law (Gibson) 2005. In regards to arrangements or contracts of a social nature however, the assumption by the law generally is that the parties do not intend for such to be legally binding. In cases of participation in competitions and lotteries however consequences are more significant (Gibson) 2005 (4.45) Simkins v Pays (1955) 1 WLR 97 with the intention that such an agreement is legally binding. Furthermore agreements in participation in competitions or lotteries have been held as enforceable by the courts. (Turner) 2009. (4.25) Trevey v Grubb (1982)
