BRAHAM v WRIGHT [1990] NSWCA 30

BRAHAM v WRIGHT

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY, MEAGHER and HANDLEY JJA 23 March 1990, 23 March 1990 [1990] NSWCA 30

CONTRACT — EXISTENCE THEREOF — ORAL AGREEMENT — CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

Priestley JA In this matter the appellant Wright as plaintiff sued the defendant, the current appellant Braham, on an oral agreement which he alleged took place in or about August 1985, whereby he was to sell to the defendant Braham options in Belcrest Corporation Ltd for the sum of $150,000. The number of options concerned was 300,000. His version is relatively simple. I think I perhaps should read it. He said that come some time which seems to be shortly before 5 August, 1985 Mr Braham said to him in the course of a telephone conversation:

"'T am going to buy your options' and I said, 'How much?' and he said, '50-cents' and he said "You know the company has been suspended. It has been off the market."

Mr Braham, accordingly to Mr Wright, rang and said:

"'T spoke to Mr Lynch and you have 300,000 options for which you want 50-cents' and I said, "Yes', and he said 'Well, I am going to take them' and then he said, 'Will you go in and sign the transfer. It will be at Mr Lynch's office."

That evidence from the plaintiffs, if it were accepted, would be ample evidence to justify the claim which the plaintiffs in fact made. I might add, that version on of the initial conversation was strongly denied by the defendant.

One should take into account as background that the options in question had been suspended by the Stock Exchange before that date. At the time of the suspension they were priced at 16-cents. It was contemplated that the suspension would be lifted and when lifted the price of the options could go through the roof, perhaps to the figure of $1.

The appellant wanted the options on what might be called a gambling basis. About that time - I do not think the evidence discloses when - he had acquired 100,000 options at 40-cents each from an innominate Chinese gentleman and he was not surprised that their price might go further. He thereafter caused the share transfer to be executed, which happened to be not in his name as transferee, but in the name of a company with which he was closely associated, that of the second respondent, Ashley and Martin (SA) Pty Ltd.