Matom Enterprises Pty Limited v Central Coast Property Management Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 799

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matom Enterprises Pty Limited v Central Coast Property Management Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 799 Hearing dates: 31 January 2011, 1 February 2011, 2 February 2011, 21 February 2011 Decision date: 27 July 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Slattery J Decision: Judgment for vendor for balance of purchase price of $180,000 plus interest. Plaintiff/Cross Claim dismissed. Directions made for the assessment of interest. Catchwords: CONTRACTS - General contractual principles - sale of real estate agents' rent roll - vendor/plaintiff claims balance of purchase price - purchaser/defendant alleges vendor in breach of contractual provisions relating to the transfer of the rent roll properties - HELD: no breach of contract. TRADE PRACTICES ACT - Trade Practices Act, 1974 and related legislation - purchaser/defendant claims rent roll sale contract induced by the vendor's misleading and deceptive conduct - HELD - no misleading and deceptive conduct. Cases Cited: Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff- Matom Enterprises Pty Limited Defendant- Central Coast Property Management Pty Limited Representation: Plaintiff- G.Laughton SC Defendant- M.Moir Plaintiff- Robert Ferry, Ferry's Law Firm Defendant- Malcolm Cameron, Central Coast Family Law File Number(s): 2010/21833 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1Matom Enterprises Pty Ltd ("Matom") holds a real estate franchise for the North Gosford area from Richardson and Wrench real estate. As part of its franchise operations Matom conducted a property management business up until September 2009. On 30 September 2009 Matom contracted to sell the rent roll of its property management business to Cental Coast Property Management Pty Ltd ("Coast") for $200,000. A dispute has arisen between Matom and Coast about the performance of this contract. In these proceedings the plaintiff, Matom, says that it: performed the sale contract; transferred the rent roll to Coast by the completion date of 30 October 2009; and, is now entitled to the balance of the purchase price of $180,000 ($200,000 minus a $20,000 deposit); and specific performance of the sale contract. In its defence Coast contests Matom's allegations and says that Matom: has breached the sale contract; has not delivered the whole rent roll to Coast; and, is not entitled to either the balance of the purchase price or specific performance. Coast also frames allegations in a cross-claim for misleading and deceptive conduct. The Court must determine these issues. First though it is necessary to make findings in relation to the contested and uncontested events through which this sales contract was negotiated, executed and performed. These findings appear in the next section of these reasons.