Cox v Tutt

In *Cox v Tutt*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Cox, and the respondent, Tutt, concerning the enforceability of a contract for the sale of land. The primary issue revolved around whether the respondent had validly exercised an option to purchase the appellant's property.

The Court was required to determine whether the notice of exercise of the option was effective, given that it was sent by ordinary post to an address that was not the last known address of the appellant. Specifically, the Court had to consider the terms of the option agreement regarding the method and place for giving notice, and whether the respondent's actions constituted substantial compliance with those terms or if the notice was rendered ineffective by the chosen method of delivery.

The Court of Appeal held that the notice of exercise of the option was not validly given. Applying the principles of contract law, particularly concerning the requirements for valid notice, the Court found that the option agreement stipulated that notice was to be given to the appellant personally or by registered post to his last known address. Sending the notice by ordinary post to an address that was not the appellant's last known address did not satisfy these contractual requirements. Consequently, the option was not effectively exercised.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the court below and dismissing the respondent's claim for specific performance.