Lavin v Toppi

In *Lavin v Toppi*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine a dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation of a clause within a contract for the sale of land. The central issue revolved around whether the purchaser, Mr. Toppi, had validly exercised an option to extend the settlement date under the contract. The vendor, Ms. Lavin, contended that the purported exercise of the option was ineffective.

The court was required to determine the proper construction of clause 11.1 of the contract, which stipulated the conditions under which the purchaser could extend the settlement date. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the purchaser's notice of intention to exercise the option was sufficient to satisfy the contractual requirements, and whether the vendor's subsequent conduct amounted to a waiver of any defects in that notice.

Judge Manousaridis found that the notice provided by the purchaser was not a valid exercise of the option under clause 11.1. The court reasoned that the clause required the purchaser to give notice of their *intention* to extend the settlement date, and that the notice provided did not clearly convey this intention. Furthermore, the court held that the vendor had not waived her right to object to the defective notice, as her actions were consistent with seeking clarification and did not demonstrate an unequivocal intention to treat the notice as valid. Consequently, the court found that the purchaser had not validly extended the settlement date.