Fletcher v Lamond

In *Fletcher v Lamond*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser, Mr Lamond, sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor, Ms Fletcher, had failed to provide vacant possession as required by the contract.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the vendor had, in fact, provided vacant possession at the settlement date. This involved an interpretation of the contractual term requiring vacant possession and an assessment of whether the presence of certain items and a tenant on the property constituted a breach of that obligation.

The Court of Appeal found that the vendor had not provided vacant possession. It reasoned that the contractual obligation to provide vacant possession meant that the property should be free from any encumbrances or persons that would prevent the purchaser from taking immediate and exclusive possession. The continued presence of the tenant and certain chattels belonging to the vendor were held to be inconsistent with this requirement. The Court applied the established legal principle that a vendor must deliver up the premises in a state that allows the purchaser to enjoy full and unfettered possession.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the vendor's appeal, upholding the primary judge's finding that the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract due to the vendor's failure to provide vacant possession.