Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Term requiring sale of property cannot be read into terms of settlement
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules that a term requiring the respondent to sell a property as mortgagee in possession prior to the payment of monies in full and final settlement cannot be read into the settlement agreement, on the grounds that: (a) there was nothing in the text of the settlement agreement or the other evidence before the court which suggests that the necessity of a sale by the mortgagee in possession was within “the presumed intention of the parties”; (b) there was nothing to suggest doing so would be giving business efficacy to the transaction as must have been intended at all events by both parties; and (c) such a term was never agreed or within the contemplation of the parties to the settlement agreement.
Interpretation of a settlement agreement - repossession proceedings - Circuit Court appeal - whether a term requiring the respondent to first to sell the property as mortgagee in possession prior to the payment of monies in full and final settlement could be read into the settlement agreement - whether the necessity of a sale by the mortgagee in possession was within the presumed intention of the parties - whether reading the settlement agreement with such a term would be giving business efficacy to the transaction as must have been intended at all events by both parties - the literal, natural and correct reading of the settlement agreement is that it is complete in what it states.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
