The County Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for repayment of a $100,000 loan, finding that the plaintiff failed to discharge his burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the loan agreement was between him and any of the three defendants, rather than between his brother and the first defendant's brother. The court placed significant weight on covertly recorded post-contractual meetings (admitted as post-contractual conduct to identify contracting parties per Lederberger v Mediterranean Olives) in which the plaintiff and his brother described the money as having been given by the brother to the first defendant's brother, and found the plaintiff's oral evidence unreliable. On the subsidiary issue, the court held in obiter that no implied term for repayment on settlement of the Brewster Street property could be established under the BP Refinery test, and that the loan would instead have been repayable on demand.
The full text is available to signed-in members.