LAWS

Laws: Case Analysis



Laws: Case Analysis

Case Analysis: Prasad v Sangha

Summary

On 8th of September, the appellant (Prasad) transferred around $150,000 in the bank account of (Sangha) the respondents. The money that was paid in request for the Mr. Goodarzi with which the appellant that had been negotiating for purchasing of an interest in the restaurant business known to be Bar-Chello in Darby Street, Crook Hill. However the appellant never has received the interest in the restaurant business and it sought to recover the $150,000 from Sangha, the respondents in the Direct Court.

Facts and figure

The action taken by the appellant was for two reasons. The one was for total failure of consideration, as he alleged the respondents, by her agent Mr. Goodarzi, who had agreed for selling an interest in the restaurant business for the appellant for $150,000. Any of these contracts was never performed and on this basis was said that it had been a total failure for consideration entitling Prasad to recover the amount paid.

The other was for the money paid under a mistake of facts. As the appellant supposed that he paid the $150,000 in the mistaken beliefs those respondents was the restaurant business owner.

The claim by the appellant was dismissed by the Delaney DCJ in the judgment delivered in 2011 March. The claim that it had been a total failure for consideration was rejected based on that Mr. Goodarzi had no authority for binding the respondents to any agreement for selling any interest in the restaurant business.

However the evidence does not permit for a conclusion as to either the respondents received $ 150,000 as the agent for the Bar-Chello Ltd and paying it away in satisfaction for liabilities for that company or in satisfying the liability for the company for which the company was liable for the fit-out or for other reasons. The existence of the May 2006 agreement for the sale of the business to BG Global Pty Ltd and the fact that the appellant did not pursue the respondent for the transfer by her of any interest for more than two and a half years after the payment are only consistent with the position being as found by the primary judge. On the basis of those findings, the primary judge did not err in rejecting the appellant's claim to recovery on the basis of a payment made under a mistake of fact (Moore, 2009, Pp. 754-774).

Case no 2:

Tort law

The word tort - derived from the Latin word that translates to "twisted or wrong" and is used in legal issues to refer to a civil wrong. A tort differs from a criminal act in the sense that criminal acts routinely committed against the state, and a tort is a wrong committed against an individual.

The legal dictionary (2011) defines Tort law as "A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that are applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of ...