Matos v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd

The applicant, Matos, purchased a property off the plan from the respondent, JLF Corporation Pty Ltd. They subsequently entered into a put option agreement where JLF Corporation agreed to repurchase the property if Matos provided a contract within a specified timeframe. When Matos sought to exercise this option, they sent a more recent version of the contract, instead of the one attached to the agreement. JLF Corporation refused to acknowledge the exercise of the option and engaged building inspectors without Matos's knowledge. JLF Corporation argued that Matos breached the put option agreement, the original contract for sale, and an equitable duty to maintain the property.

The court was required to determine if Matos validly exercised the put option agreement and if specific performance should be ordered. This involved examining the terms of the put option agreement, the effect of Matos sending a different version of the contract, and the consequences of JLF Corporation's refusal to acknowledge the exercise of the option. The court also had to consider whether Matos's actions constituted a breach of the original contract and any equitable duties.

The court found that the put option agreement was validly exercised by Matos, despite the discrepancy in the contract version sent. The court ruled that the exercise of the option was not dependent on JLF Corporation's acknowledgment or signature of the contract. The court considered that the most up-to-date contract used by Matos was substantially similar to the one required by the put option agreement. The court also found that JLF Corporation's refusal to acknowledge the exercise of the option and their independent actions did not invalidate the exercise. Regarding the equitable duty to maintain the property, the court found no evidence of a significant breach by Matos.

The court ordered that the matter be heard further to determine the precise form of orders and the allocation of costs.