Carrapetta v Rado

In *Carrapetta v Rado*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute arising from the completion of a contract for the sale of land. The purchasers, the appellants, had failed to complete the purchase on the specified date, and the vendor, the respondent, subsequently issued a notice to complete. The purchasers contended that the notice was invalid, primarily due to uncertainty regarding the applicable interest rate on the outstanding purchase moneys, which was a contractual requirement in the event of delayed completion.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the vendor's notice to complete was validly given, notwithstanding the purchasers' default and the alleged uncertainty surrounding the calculation of interest. Specifically, the court had to determine if the vendor's actions, including reserving her rights concerning the interest calculation and later submitting a settlement statement with an arguably inconsistent interest amount, vitiated the notice to complete. The court also considered the status and purpose of a settlement statement provided by one party to the other in the context of contractual completion.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the vendor's reservation of rights regarding the interest calculation, coupled with her reliance on the contract, did not render the notice to complete invalid. The court held that the vendor was entitled to issue a notice to complete when the purchasers were in default. Furthermore, the court observed that a settlement statement, while a useful tool for facilitating settlement, does not typically alter the contractual rights or obligations of the parties. The submission of a settlement statement containing an interest amount that might be disputed did not, in this instance, invalidate the vendor's right to demand completion under the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.