Chapple and Michel

In *Chapple and Michel*, the Supreme Court of Queensland 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, who failed to settle on the stipulated date. The vendor subsequently purported to terminate the contract.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice to complete 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 legislation, and whether the vendor's subsequent termination was therefore lawful.

The Court found that the notice to complete was defective because it did not specify a reasonable time for completion, as required by the contract and the *Property Law Act 1974* (Qld). The Court reasoned that a notice to complete must provide a party with a genuine opportunity to remedy the breach, and a time frame that is demonstrably insufficient for that purpose renders the notice invalid. Consequently, the vendor's purported termination of the contract was unlawful. The Court ordered that the contract remained on foot.