"As already noted, Mr Cox values the apartment at $1,500,000 and said that its value would have been $1,750,000 had the view been the equivalent of that from the display centre. " Mirvac v. Holland
"The defendant [Mirvac] is in possession of the apartment. After the flood, it removed the mud. The walls of the apartment consisted of Gyprock sheeting. The defendant removed the lower level of the Gyprock, which was flood affected. Wiring was disconnected; switches were removed and piled into a heap; appliances were disconnected. Dunworth v. Mirvac
"It is that the area of a part of the actual Lot varies by more than five per cent from the area depicted upon the drawing for that part. In this case the area of each of the balconies varies from what was shown within the original drawing by, in one case, 10.35 per cent and in the other by 15.30 per cent. Because clause 6.3(a) of the proposed (and actual) contract permitted a change up to five per cent to the “size of the Lot or any part of the Lot” it is argued that these changes made the actual Lot different from the proposed Lot as originally identified." Mirvac v. Beioley
No comments:
Post a Comment