Fitzpatrick v Waterstreet

In *Fitzpatrick v Waterstreet*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor had failed to provide vacant possession by the settlement date.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the vendor had, in fact, failed to give vacant possession as required by the contract. This involved an examination of the contractual obligations regarding vacant possession and the circumstances surrounding the vendor's departure from the property.

The Court of Appeal held that the vendor had not breached the contract by failing to give vacant possession. It reasoned that the purchaser's own actions, specifically their refusal to attend settlement on the due date, had prevented the vendor from fulfilling their obligation. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot rely on a breach of contract that they themselves have caused or contributed to. Consequently, the purchaser was not entitled to terminate the contract.