Karfoal Pty Ltd v Lorence

Karfoal Pty Ltd brought an action against Lorence, seeking to enforce the sale of a hotel property. Lorence, who was one of two joint vendors, had died, leaving the surviving vendor to complete the sale. The dispute centred on whether the surviving vendor could unilaterally make time of the essence in the contract, deal with the hotelier's licence, and whether the purchaser could rescind due to inadequate responses to requisitions. Additionally, the court examined the effect of the partnership between the vendors on the joint tenancy of the property and whether there was any relief from the forfeiture of the deposit. The court was also required to consider whether leave should be granted to amend the summons to address these issues.

The court found that the surviving vendor could not unilaterally make time of the essence in the contract nor deal with the hotelier's licence without the consent of the deceased vendor's estate. The court also held that the purchaser was entitled to rescind due to the inadequacy of the responses to the requisitions. Regarding the partnership, the court ruled that it did not affect the joint tenancy, and thus, the surviving vendor could not act independently. The court further determined that there was no basis for relief from the forfeiture of the deposit as the purchaser had valid grounds for rescission. Finally, the court granted leave to amend the summons to include these additional issues.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract due to the inadequate responses to the requisitions and the inability of the surviving vendor to unilaterally make time of the essence or deal with the hotelier's licence. The court also ruled that there was no relief from the forfeiture of the deposit. Leave was granted to amend the summons to incorporate these additional issues.