Vendors' statements, the right to cool off and remedies: Le Cornu and Kurda v Place on Brougham Pty Ltd

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBabie, P.en
dc.date.issued2014en
dc.descriptionResearch paperen
dc.description.abstractLe Cornu and Kurda v Place on Brougham Pty Ltd [2013] SADC 32 confirms that a Vendor’s Statement is not invalid due solely to the non-existence of the property the subject of such statement. Yet, once a Vendor’s Statement is rendered invalid on other grounds, the right to cool off remains open, allowing the purchaser a choice between electing to affirm or rescission. In either case, though, the vendor retains the right to claim estoppel.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityPaul T. Babieen
dc.identifier.citationProperty Law Review, 2014; 4:143-145en
dc.identifier.issn1838-3858en
dc.identifier.orcidBabie, P. [0000-0002-9616-3300]en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/107707
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThomson Reutersen
dc.rightsCopyright status unknownen
dc.source.urihttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2607397en
dc.subjectReal property; vendor's statements; right to cool offen
dc.titleVendors' statements, the right to cool off and remedies: Le Cornu and Kurda v Place on Brougham Pty Ltden
dc.typeJournal articleen
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden

Files

Collections

Law publications