Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd

In the case of Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd, the parties were the purchaser, Crowe, and the vendor, Rindock Pty Ltd. The dispute involved the sale of a property where Crowe had issued requisitions on title, which were queries about the vendor's title to the property. Rindock provided an inadequate response, and Crowe subsequently sent a notice to complete, which was issued minutes after Rindock provided an amended response. The central issue before the court was whether Rindock was in breach of contract for its inadequate initial response, and whether Crowe was in default for not waiting a reasonable time before issuing the notice to complete.

The court considered the nature of the requisitions on title and the obligations of both parties under the contract. It examined the adequacy of Rindock's initial response and the timeliness of Crowe's notice to complete. The court found that Rindock's initial response was inadequate and did not address Crowe's concerns. However, the court also determined that Crowe's notice to complete, issued shortly after receiving an amended response from Rindock, was premature and thus in default. The court held that while Rindock was initially in breach, Crowe's failure to wait a reasonable period before issuing the notice to complete constituted a default on their part.

The court concluded that Crowe was not entitled to terminate the contract based on the vendor's initial inadequate response, as Crowe itself was also in default by not waiting a reasonable time before issuing the notice to complete. The court's reasoning focused on the interplay between the parties' contractual obligations and the principles of reasonable conduct. The court ordered that the contract remain in effect, and both parties were directed to fulfil their respective obligations under the contract.