Kristl v Wallington

In *Kristl v Wallington* [1995] NSWCA 250, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Kristl, and the respondent, Wallington, concerning the interpretation and enforceability of a contract for the sale of land. The primary issue before the court was whether the contract, which contained a clause requiring the purchaser to obtain finance, had been validly terminated by the vendor.

The court was required to determine whether the vendor was entitled to terminate the contract on the grounds that the purchaser had failed to satisfy the finance condition within the stipulated timeframe. This involved an examination of the purchaser's conduct in seeking finance and whether they had taken all reasonable steps to secure it, as well as the vendor's obligations and rights under the contract.

The Court of Appeal held that the vendor was not entitled to terminate the contract. The court reasoned that the purchaser had taken all reasonable steps to obtain finance, and the delay in securing approval was not due to any fault on the purchaser's part. The vendor's purported termination was therefore wrongful. The court applied principles of contract law concerning the satisfaction of conditions precedent and the duty of good faith in contractual performance.