Aravanis v Daisley

In *Aravanis v Daisley*, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor had breached a contractual term requiring the property to be vacant on settlement. The vendor, however, contended that the purchaser was not entitled to terminate and that the purchaser had repudiated the contract.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the vendor's failure to ensure the property was vacant on settlement constituted a breach of an essential term of the contract, thereby entitling the purchaser to terminate. The Court also had to determine whether the purchaser's actions amounted to a repudiation of the contract, which would have entitled the vendor to terminate.

Judge Wilson found that the contractual term requiring the property to be vacant on settlement was an essential term. The Court reasoned that the purchaser's ability to take possession and enjoy the property was fundamental to the contract. As the vendor had failed to deliver vacant possession on the settlement date, the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract. The Court further held that the purchaser's subsequent actions did not amount to a repudiation of the contract, as they were a legitimate response to the vendor's breach.

The Court ordered that the contract of sale be terminated and that the vendor repay the deposit to the purchaser.