Campagna & Aldo

In *Campagna & Aldo*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a party to a contract for the sale of land was entitled to terminate the contract due to the other party's failure to comply with a notice to complete. The dispute arose after the vendor issued a notice to complete to the purchaser, alleging a breach of contract. The purchaser failed to complete the sale by the date specified in the notice, and the vendor subsequently purported to terminate the contract. The purchaser then sought to have the termination declared invalid and sought specific performance of the contract.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice to complete, as issued by the vendor, was valid and effective in law. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the notice complied with the requirements of the contract and the relevant contractual principles governing notices to complete. This involved an examination of the terms of the contract itself and the established legal framework for such notices, particularly concerning the certainty and clarity required in their content and service.

Watt J found that the notice to complete was defective and therefore invalid. The Court reasoned that the notice failed to specify a reasonable time for completion, a crucial element for the validity of such a notice. The judge applied the principle that a notice to complete must provide a party with a reasonable opportunity to remedy the breach, and that what constitutes a reasonable time is a question of fact to be determined by reference to the circumstances of the case. As the notice did not afford such a reasonable time, it was ineffective to found a right to terminate the contract.

Consequently, Watt J ordered that the vendor's purported termination of the contract was invalid and that the contract remained on foot. The Court also granted the purchaser's claim for specific performance, compelling the vendor to proceed with the sale of the property.