In Brief
Landowners entered an agreement to sell property to petrol pump operators in 1993, but the agreement was signed only by two of five co-owners (brothers), not the three sisters who held a majority share. The operators sued for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the operators failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform and that the brother lacked authority to bind the sisters. The High Court reversed, directing specific performance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding: (1) the operators failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness as required by law; (2) the brother's authority to act for the sisters was not valid or subsisting; and (3) specific performance would be inequitable. The Court restored the trial judgment and directed refund of earnest money to the operators.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.