Fw: Watermill International (Australia) Pty Ltd v David M Windmiller

Watermill International (Australia) Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against David M Windmiller (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged repudiation of the contract and the applicant's subsequent election to affirm the contract and seek specific performance. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct constituted a repudiation of the contract for the sale of land. If repudiation was established, the court then had to determine whether the applicant had validly elected to affirm the contract and was therefore entitled to an order for specific performance.

Justice Wilson found that the respondent's conduct, specifically his failure to attend settlement and his subsequent communication indicating an unwillingness to proceed with the sale, amounted to a repudiation of the contract. The court reasoned that the respondent's actions demonstrated a clear intention no longer to be bound by the terms of the agreement. The applicant's immediate response, by seeking specific performance, was held to be a valid affirmation of the contract, demonstrating an election to proceed with the sale rather than accept the repudiation. The court applied the principles of contract law concerning repudiation and affirmation, emphasising that an innocent party has a choice upon repudiation: either to accept the repudiation and terminate the contract, or to affirm the contract and seek its enforcement.

The court ordered specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.