Le v Qureshi

In the matter of Le v Qureshi, the purchasers sought summary judgment against the vendors who had terminated their contract under clause 91 of the REIQ Queensland Law Society Standard Contract For Houses and Land (5th ed). The purchasers had allegedly breached the contract by failing to deliver the transfer documents to the vendors "a reasonable time before the Settlement Date." The vendors had specified that correspondence should be sent to their solicitors’ post office box. The transfer documents were posted and cleared on the previous Thursday afternoon, although the solicitors were located in adjoining suburbs. The transfer documents were not available in the post office box until Monday morning. The court had to determine whether the purchasers were in breach of the contract and, if so, whether they should be relieved from the forfeiture of their bargain. The court also considered the obligation of the contracting parties to cooperate and the relevant provisions of the UCPR.

The court examined the meaning of "a reasonable time" and the context in which it was used in the contract. The court held that the phrase "a reasonable time" was a subjective term and should be interpreted in light of the circumstances of the case. The court found that the purchasers had breached the contract by not delivering the transfer documents in a timely manner. However, the court also considered the obligation of the contracting parties to cooperate and the possibility of relieving the purchasers from the forfeiture of their bargain. The court held that the vendors had not acted cooperatively by specifying that correspondence should be sent to their solicitors’ post office box without ensuring that the documents would be available in a timely manner. The court found that the purchasers' breach was not so fundamental that it entitled the vendors to terminate the contract.

The court granted the application for summary judgment and ordered that the orders be finalised. The court held that the purchasers were entitled to specific performance of the contract and that the vendors were liable for damages for their wrongful termination of the contract. The court also ordered that the vendors pay the purchasers' costs of the application. The court emphasised the importance of the obligation of the contracting parties to cooperate and the need to interpret the terms of the contract in light of the circumstances of the case.