Mueci V Winadell Case Summary
CASE NOTE
MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD
KYLE CROSS
I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723
Parties Musumeci, lessee (Plaintiff)
Winadell Pty Ltd, lessor (Defendant)
Date 4 August 1994
Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC)
Coram Santow J
II LITIGATION HISTORY
This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages, and claim for relief against forfeiture.
III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
The Plaintiff (Musumeci) leased a fruit market shop from the defendant (Winadell Pty Ltd). Winadell subsequently leased several shops to a competing business that threatened the Musumeci’ business. Musumeci requested a 1/3 reduction of their lease rent as compensation. A dispute subsequently arose, and Winadell …show more content…
The practical detriment to the Lessees lay in risking their capacity to survive against a much stronger competitor, by staying in occupancy under their lease, rather than walking away at the cost of damages.”
It is important to note that even though they were not obliged to do so, the defendant avoided a dis-benefit by reducing the cost of rent. This is classified as consideration because the Defendant was not forced into agreement, but knowingly agreed to bargain with the Plaintiff.
VII DECISION AND ORDER
The Court awarded all costs to the Plaintiffs including loss and damage. The Parties were directed to submit orders within 21 days in effect of the judgement.
VIII RATIO DECIDENDI
Past consideration is no consideration except where the promise to perform an existing legal duty in fact confers a practical benefit on the promisee, provided that the person isn’t extorting the other
MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD
KYLE CROSS
I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723
Parties Musumeci, lessee (Plaintiff)
Winadell Pty Ltd, lessor (Defendant)
Date 4 August 1994
Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC)
Coram Santow J
II LITIGATION HISTORY
This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages, and claim for relief against forfeiture.
III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
The Plaintiff (Musumeci) leased a fruit market shop from the defendant (Winadell Pty Ltd). Winadell subsequently leased several shops to a competing business that threatened the Musumeci’ business. Musumeci requested a 1/3 reduction of their lease rent as compensation. A dispute subsequently arose, and Winadell …show more content…
The practical detriment to the Lessees lay in risking their capacity to survive against a much stronger competitor, by staying in occupancy under their lease, rather than walking away at the cost of damages.”
It is important to note that even though they were not obliged to do so, the defendant avoided a dis-benefit by reducing the cost of rent. This is classified as consideration because the Defendant was not forced into agreement, but knowingly agreed to bargain with the Plaintiff.
VII DECISION AND ORDER
The Court awarded all costs to the Plaintiffs including loss and damage. The Parties were directed to submit orders within 21 days in effect of the judgement.
VIII RATIO DECIDENDI
Past consideration is no consideration except where the promise to perform an existing legal duty in fact confers a practical benefit on the promisee, provided that the person isn’t extorting the other