Schwartz v Hadid [2013] NSWCA 89

A lender sought repayment of a loan made to his joint venture partner. The borrower it had been agreed verbally to vary the loan so as to extend the repayment date.

The Appeal Court found that even if the alleged variation was agreed it was an unenforceable contract because there was no benefit (consideration) flowing to the lender.  In order to have an enforceable contract both sides must obtain benefit.

The borrower next argued that the extension of the loan was a promise which the lender was estopped from breaking. However the borrower gave no evidence that he had relied on the promise and so failed on this count as well.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top