Gould v Day

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Gould v Day*. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause in a contract for the sale of land, specifically whether the purchaser had validly exercised an option to extend the settlement date. The purchaser sought to rely on a notice of extension, while the vendor argued the notice was ineffective.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice of extension provided by the purchaser complied with the contractual requirements for its valid exercise. This involved determining the proper construction of the clause governing the extension of time for settlement and whether the purchaser's actions satisfied those conditions.

The Court considered the principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the contract should be given effect, unless the context clearly indicated otherwise. It was held that the purchaser's notice, which was sent by ordinary post and not in the manner stipulated by the contract, failed to meet the express requirements for valid notification. The contract required notice to be given by registered post or personal delivery. Consequently, the purchaser had not validly exercised the option to extend the settlement date. The appeal was dismissed.