Jarjo v Patterson

Introduction

1. These proceedings concern a property in Appian Way, Burwood ("the property") that is owned by the defendants, Mr Michael and Ms Wendy Patterson, as joint tenants. The plaintiffs, Mr Jacque and Ms Juanita Jarjo, allege that on 16 November 2020 they entered into a valid and binding contract with the defendants to purchase the property for a price of $4,507,000. The plaintiffs seek a declaration to that effect, and an order that the contract be specifically performed.
2. The defendants, who conducted their defences separately throughout the proceedings, each deny that the alleged contract was made. In short, the defendants contend that Ms Patterson did not sign the contract, and that the signature on the contract that appears to be hers was placed there on 13 November 2020 by Mr Patterson, who lacked authority to do so.
3. The plaintiffs seem to accept that Ms Patterson did not sign the contract, and that her apparent signature was written by Mr Patterson. However, the plaintiffs contend that the Court should find that Mr Patterson had actual authority to bind Ms Patterson to the contract. The conferral of actual authority is said to have occurred either by a specific authorisation to sign the contract, or by a more general authorisation to sell the property. The case was not put as one of ostensible authority.
4. The central issue of authority is a question of fact (see Bonette v Woolworths Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 142 at 149-150 per Jordan CJ). The question is to be determined upon a consideration of the whole of the evidence. Questions arise concerning what inferences should be drawn from the evidence, as do questions concerning the credibility and reliability of the principal witnesses, particularly Mr and Ms Patterson and Mr Romani Iskander, an agent involved in the transaction.
5. Evidence was also given by Mr Jarjo. His credibility was not the subject of any challenge, and his evidence is accepted as truthful.