FURNESS & VINEY

In *Furness & Viney*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a party to a contract for the sale of land was entitled to terminate the contract due to the other party's failure to comply with a notice to complete. The dispute arose after the vendor issued a notice to complete to the purchaser, alleging a breach of contract. The purchaser contended that the notice was invalid, thereby preventing the vendor from terminating the agreement.

The central legal issue before the Court was the validity of the notice to complete. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the notice satisfied the requirements of the contract and the general law regarding notices to complete, particularly in circumstances where the party issuing the notice might also be in breach of their own obligations under the contract.

Obradovic J held that the notice to complete was invalid. The Court reasoned that a party seeking to rely on a notice to complete must themselves be ready, willing, and able to perform their obligations under the contract at the time the notice is issued. In this instance, the vendor had not fulfilled certain essential pre-conditions prior to issuing the notice, rendering it defective. The legal principle applied was that a party cannot take advantage of their own breach or failure to perform to terminate a contract. Consequently, the vendor was not entitled to terminate the contract.