Off-the-Plan Industrial Land: When Can the Developer Walk Away?
When the contract clearly lets it and no statute stands in the way. The Victorian Court of Appeal held that a developer validly ended off-the-plan contracts
Contracts, structures and governance for businesses that need the paperwork to hold when something goes wrong.
Buying or selling a business, from the term sheet and due diligence through to completion and the restraints that follow.
Commercial disputes in the NSW, ACT and Federal courts, resolved early where that is possible and run properly where it is not.
Your product scales digitally. Your contracts have to scale with it.
Where the law changed, what it now requires, and what a business has to do about it.
One question worked through end to end, with the provisions and the decisions it rests on.
What a judgment decided, and what follows from it for anyone in the same position.
A German desk for businesses moving between Australia and the German-speaking market.
Singapore law where it governs the contract, and the arbitral seat that carries much of the region’s work.
When the contract clearly lets it and no statute stands in the way. The Victorian Court of Appeal held that a developer validly ended off-the-plan contracts
Not to squeeze them out. In Aulich v Scott the Full Federal Court upheld the finding that share issues at $1 a share, offered to every
Under the clause in Cosette v Mayne Pharma, only when the events it relies on, measured net of every consequence, cross the contractual threshold, and only
Not necessarily. In Capital Markets Company v Sommerin the NSW Supreme Court ordered pre-action discovery against a former employee, his new employer and a recruiter, although
A party bound to act in good faith may terminate on a third party’s adverse assessment without repeating the investigation. What it may not do, the
Generally no. Where the debt is genuinely in dispute and covered by an arbitration agreement, the Singapore court will ordinarily dismiss the winding-up application without deciding
Glencore. The taxpayer beat the adjustments on the evidence, and lost the point it is usually cited for: the Full Court held the tax office can
Chevron. No security, no covenants, no parent guarantee. The company argued it could never have borrowed alone, and that argument is the reason it lost.
Singapore Telecom. Two later amendments to the interest terms went through for no commercial reason anyone could give, and the company carried the burden of explaining
PepsiCo, in the High Court. A bottling agreement that licensed the brand royalty free, sold the concentrate, and divided the Court three ways on what the