Mammadova v Rose

In the case of Mammadova v Rose, the respondent, a property vendor, brought an action against the appellant, a property purchaser, for specific performance of a contract of sale. The contract in question was executed on 14 February 2013, whereby the appellant agreed to purchase a property in Melbourne for a price of $1,180,000. The appellant paid a deposit of $118,000 and was required to complete the purchase by 30 April 2013. The respondent subsequently accepted a higher offer of $1,220,000 from a third party and sought to terminate the contract with the appellant. The appellant claimed that the contract was binding and sought specific performance.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to specific performance of the contract. This involved determining whether the appellant had satisfied the conditions precedent to the contract, whether there was any impediment to specific performance, and whether it was equitable to grant the remedy. The court also had to consider whether the respondent had validly terminated the contract by accepting a higher offer from a third party.

The court held that the appellant was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The court found that the appellant had satisfied all conditions precedent to the contract, including the payment of the deposit. The court also found that there was no impediment to specific performance, such as the appellant's inability to finance the purchase. The court held that it was equitable to grant specific performance as the appellant had acted diligently and in good faith in attempting to complete the purchase. The court further found that the respondent had not validly terminated the contract by accepting a higher offer from a third party, as the contract contained a "no termination" clause.

The court ordered that the contract be specifically performed, with the appellant completing the purchase of the property for the price of $1,180,000. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the proceeding.