Lahoud & Ors v Lahoud & Anor

[2006] NSWCA 169

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Collateral contract
3. › Oral promises alleged as conditions for entry into written agreement
4. › Whether factual errors shown on appeal
5. › Entire agreement clause
6. › Whether collateral agreement precluded by entire agreement and release clauses
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from findings of fact
3. › Credibility findings
4. › Whether primary judge's factual errors material to decision
5. › Standard of appellate review of factual findings
1. Evidence
2. › Oral evidence
3. › Reliability of recollection of conversations
4. › Watson v Foxman principles
5. › Fallibility of human memory
6. › Corroboration
1. Estoppel
2. › Promissory estoppel
3. › Whether oral promises of positive character can found estoppel
4. › Whether entire agreement clause negatives reasonable reliance

Quick Take

An entire agreement clause and mutual release in written terms of settlement will preclude a party from relying on an alleged oral collateral agreement, applying Hoyts v Spencer. The Watson v Foxman principles concerning the fallibility of human memory apply not only to allegations of misleading conduct but also to allegations of contractual statements and evidence of contemporary accounts of such statements. Positive promissory statements do not found orthodox promissory estoppel, which requires negative promises restricting enforcement of existing legal rights.