Cranitch v Cranitch

In the case of Cranitch v Cranitch, the Queensland Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the second respondent had validly exercised a testamentary option to purchase a property from the estate of the deceased. The dispute arose from the interpretation and execution of the deceased's will, specifically clause 6, which provided the second respondent with an option to purchase the property at 104 Jubilee Terrace, Bardon. The central legal issues concerned whether the option was exercised within the time frame specified in the will and whether it was properly executed according to the terms outlined.

The court found that the will required the second respondent to make a one-time decision to exercise the option, and it did not allow for multiple decisions over the stipulated period. The second respondent's conditional acceptance of the option was deemed a counter-offer, and as such, it did not constitute a valid exercise of the option. Additionally, the court held that even if the option had been validly exercised, it did not occur before the deadline of 28 January 2019, which was two months from the date the second respondent could have set the price. The court relied on the principle from Hyde v Wrench, where a conditional acceptance was treated as a rejection of the original offer and a counter-offer.

Consequently, the court declared that the second respondent did not duly exercise the option to purchase the property. As a result, the property at 104 Jubilee Terrace, Bardon forms part of the deceased’s residuary estate, to be distributed in accordance with clause 4.2 of the will. The court further noted that the issue of costs would be heard separately, indicating that the parties would need to present their arguments on this matter.