NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Principal Strategic Options v Coshott [2000] NSWSC 310 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division Commercial List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50065/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 27.3.2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 March 2000
PARTIES : Principal Strategic Options Pty Limited -v- Robert Gilbert Coshott JUDGMENT OF : Hunter J
COUNSEL : Plaintiff: G A Palmer QC Defendant: R G Coshott (in person) SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Watkins Tapsell Defendant: R G Coshott (in person) CATCHWORDS : Contract - construction of put option clause - specific performance - uncertainty of option agreement. DECISION : Option agreement specifically enforceable. Judgment for plaintiff in sum of $1,355,239.74.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST
HUNTER J
TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2000
50065/99 - PRINCIPAL STRATEGIC OPTIONS PTY LTD v ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 In these proceedings the essential facts are not in issue as distinct from the effect of particular acts relevant to the performance of agreements as referred to in these reasons. 2 The question to be determined is the construction of an agreement between NSW Master Franchise Pty Ltd (the company), Robert Gilbert Coshott (Coshott) and Principal Strategic Options Pty Ltd (Strategic) dated 21 August 1998 (the shareholders deed). Strategic was controlled by Andrew Blake (Blake) an option trader. 3 The shareholders deed related to proposed restaurant franchising rights granted to the company under an agreement dated 28 August 1998 (the license agreement) between Schlotzsky's Australasia Pty Ltd (Schlotzskys) and the company pursuant to which the company acquired the right from Schlotzskys "to Franchise the use of the System and the Marks in the Territory in connection with the Licensed Restaurants" (clause 3.5(a)). The "Territory" was defined under the license agreement as New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. It is agreed that Coshott was a director and held a beneficial interest in both Schlotzskys and the company at the time of the execution of the shareholders deed and the license agreement. The two agreements linked in time and in operation. Under the shareholders deed conditions precedent were stipulated as follows:
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate