Business Law

Business Law

Question 1

Summary of NSW Court of Appeal case Prasad v Sangha

About $150,000 were transferred in the bank account of the respondent on 8th September, 2006. This money was transferred on the request for the purchase of an interest in a restaurant business by Mr. Goodarzi. The restaurant business was Bar-Chello in Darby Street. The respondent didn't receive the amount and therefore appealed in the District Court. The first reason for appeal was the total failure of consideration. This was agreed that the interest of the business was to be sold at $150,000 by the agent of Mr. Goodarzi. This contract was not fulfilled. The second reason for appeal was the money paid under a mistake of fact. The appellant argued that the sum was paid with the mistake that the recipient was the owner of the restaurant business. The claim made by the appellant was dismissed by the primary judge, Delaney DCJ. Mr. Goodarzi didn't have any authority to sell any interest in the restaurant business through any agreement. This was stated by the court. The appellant notice of appeal was challenged with the rejection placed by the primary judge for the claim of recovery from the total failure of consideration on the grounds 1 to 4. The grounds 1 to 2 included the error made by the primary judge where it was commented that Mr. Goodarzi had no authority. In the end, the case concluded with the dismissal of the appeal and ordering the appellant to pay the cost of the appeal to the respondent (Dixon, 2009).

Authority of Mr. Goodarzi for Mr. Sangha & Mr. Prasad's restitution claim

8th September 2006 was the date when $150,000 was paid to the respondent on the request of Mr. Goodarzi. The amount was negotiated for the purchase of the interest of Bar-Chello restaurant business. The allegation was made that Mr. Goodarzi have agreed to sell the interest to the restaurant business to the appellant for the amount of $150,000. The primary judge, Delaney DCJ dismissed the appellant's claim. The claim was rejected on the basis that no authority is with Mr. Goodarzi for the binding of the respondent to sell the interest of the restaurant business. Grounds 1 and 2 of the case stated that the primary judge made the mistake in holding that Mr. Goodarzi has no authority to enter into any agreement on respondent's behalf. In 2005, Bar-Chello restaurant business was conducted and controlled by the Kuldip Sangha. Before May 2006, Mr. Goodarzi required the interest in the restaurant business. The company controlled by Mr. Goodarzi, BG Global Pty Ltd was agreed to purchase the interest of the restaurant business of Bar-Chello Pty Ltd. Mr. Goodarzi was known by the appellant because they have worked together before. The offered the appellant to buy in the Bar-Chello restaurant as an opportunity.

The appellant expected that he would acquire the interest in the restaurant business with Mr. Goodarzi. The appellant was unaware as to who the vendor of the ...