Chang v Su

In *Chang v Su*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr Chang, and the respondent, Ms Su, concerning the enforceability of a contract for the sale of land. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the contract, which was signed by both parties, contained all the essential terms required by the *Statute of Frauds* (NSW) for a valid contract for the sale of land.

The High Court was required to determine whether the written contract, which did not specify the exact date for completion of the sale, was nevertheless sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the absence of an express completion date rendered the agreement void for uncertainty, or if the law could imply a reasonable time for completion in such circumstances.

The Court held that the contract was not void for uncertainty. Applying established principles of contract law, the Court reasoned that where a contract for the sale of land does not specify a completion date, the law will imply a term that completion must occur within a reasonable time. This implied term is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the *Statute of Frauds* and render the contract enforceable. The Court noted that the parties had not agreed that the completion date was an essential term to be expressly stipulated, and therefore, the absence of such a stipulation did not prevent the formation of a binding agreement.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable.