McKenna v Solomon [No 2]

McKenna v Solomon [No 2] concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal following a decision by a single judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of land, where the purchaser, McKenna, sought to enforce the contract against the vendor, Solomon. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the contract had been validly terminated by the vendor.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the vendor, Solomon, had validly rescinded the contract for the sale of land. This involved determining whether the purchaser, McKenna, had committed a repudiatory breach of the contract, thereby entitling Solomon to terminate. A further issue was whether, even if a repudiatory breach had occurred, Solomon had elected to affirm the contract rather than terminate it.

The Court of Appeal found that McKenna had not committed a repudiatory breach. It held that the purchaser's conduct, while perhaps inconvenient or frustrating to the vendor, did not demonstrate a clear intention to abandon the contract or refuse to perform its essential obligations. Consequently, the vendor was not entitled to terminate the contract. The court applied the principles of contract law concerning repudiation, emphasizing that a breach must be fundamental to justify termination.

As a result of these findings, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and ordered that the contract be specifically performed.