Crisp v Ross

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Crisp, and the respondent, Ross, concerning the enforceability of a contract for the sale of land. The central 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 respondent's purported exercise of the option was effective, specifically in light of the terms of the option agreement and the conduct of the parties. This involved an examination of whether the respondent had complied with the conditions precedent for the exercise of the option and whether the appellant's actions constituted a waiver of any such conditions.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had not validly exercised the option. It held that the terms of the option agreement were clear and that the respondent had failed to satisfy a crucial condition precedent within the stipulated timeframe. The Court rejected arguments that the appellant had waived this condition, finding no evidence of unequivocal conduct on the appellant's part that indicated an intention to forgo the benefit of that condition. The principles of contract law regarding the strict compliance with the terms of an option were applied.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the primary judge.