Frampton v McCully: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎top: Date formats
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Normalize {{Multiple issues}}: Remove {{Multiple issues}} for only 1 maintenance template(s): Refimprove
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}}
{{multiple issues|
{{Orphan|date=September 2014}}
{{Orphan|date=September 2014}}
{{refimprove|date=January 2017}}
{{refimprove|date=January 2017}}
}}


{{Infobox court case
{{Infobox court case

Revision as of 18:27, 31 May 2020

Frampton v McCully
CourtCourt of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameFrampton v McCully
Decided21 October 1975
Citation(s)[1976] 1 NZLR 270
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingMcCarthy P, Richmond J, Cooke J
Keywords
solicitors approval

Frampton v McCully [1976] 1 NZLR 270 is a New Zealand case cited regarding whether a contract that is subject to one parties solicitor's approval and whether such approval can be with held for non conveyancing matters.[1]

Background

McCully entered in a conditional sale agreement with Moir for a trust property, with the condition being subject to the approval of the trust's solicitor (and trustee) Mr Frampton. The approval was not limited to just conveyancing matters. Mr Frampton subsequently refused to give approval for the sale, for non conveyancing reasons. McCully claimed that solicitors approval was only allowed to be with held for conveyance matters.

Held

The Court of Appeal ruled that as the sales agreement was clearly a conditional offer, and as that condition was never met, there was no legally binding contract between the parties.

References

  1. ^ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. [page needed]. ISBN 0-86472-555-8.