Licul v Corney

The parties to this appeal were Licul (the appellant) and Corney (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's claim for damages for breach of contract, arising from the appellant's failure to complete the purchase of a property. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had validly terminated the contract for the sale of land. This required the court to consider the nature of the condition precedent in the contract, specifically whether it was a condition precedent to the performance of the contract or a condition precedent to the formation of the contract, and the consequences of its non-fulfilment. The court also had to determine whether the respondent had waived the condition or was estopped from relying on its non-fulfilment.

The High Court held that the condition precedent in question was a condition precedent to the performance of the contract, not its formation. Consequently, the contract was binding upon the parties from its inception, subject to the condition being fulfilled. The court reasoned that the language of the contract indicated an intention to create a binding agreement, with the condition relating to the obtaining of finance being a matter for performance rather than formation. As the condition was not fulfilled and the respondent had not waived it, the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract. The court applied principles relating to conditions precedent in contracts for the sale of land and the doctrines of waiver and estoppel.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court.