Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/107707
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Babie, P. | en |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | en |
dc.identifier.citation | Property Law Review, 2014; 4:143-145 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1838-3858 | en |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/107707 | - |
dc.description | Research paper | en |
dc.description.abstract | Le 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.statementofresponsibility | Paul T. Babie | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | Thomson Reuters | en |
dc.rights | Copyright status unknown | en |
dc.source.uri | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2607397 | en |
dc.subject | Real property; vendor's statements; right to cool off | en |
dc.title | Vendors' statements, the right to cool off and remedies: Le Cornu and Kurda v Place on Brougham Pty Ltd | en |
dc.type | Journal article | en |
pubs.publication-status | Published | en |
dc.identifier.orcid | Babie, P. [0000-0002-9616-3300] | en |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 3 Law publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.