Coughlan and Jack

In *Coughlan and Jack*, 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 purchasers failed to complete the sale by the date stipulated in the contract, prompting the vendors to issue a notice to complete. The purchasers subsequently failed to comply with this notice, leading the vendors to terminate the contract and seek damages.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice to complete was valid and effective in law, thereby entitling the vendors to terminate the contract. This required the Court to consider the requirements for a valid notice to complete under Queensland contract law, particularly in relation to the time stipulated for completion and the nature of any defects in the notice. The Court also had to determine whether the purchasers' failure to comply with the notice constituted a repudiation of the contract, justifying its termination by the vendors.

Justice Baumann found that the notice to complete was invalid because it did not provide a reasonable period for completion, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Court applied the principle that a notice to complete must allow a reasonable time for the defaulting party to remedy the breach, and that what constitutes a reasonable time is a question of fact to be determined by reference to the specific circumstances. As the notice was found to be invalid, the vendors were not entitled to terminate the contract on that basis. The Court therefore held that the vendors' purported termination was wrongful, and the purchasers were entitled to damages for breach of contract.