Melbourne Yifang Group Pty Ltd v Guangao a Group Pty Ltd

Melbourne Yifang Group Pty Ltd sued Guangao a Group Pty Ltd over a contract of sale for property. The dispute arose over the settlement date of the property and whether an attempt to extend this date by the vendor and the nominee constituted repudiatory conduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to determine whether the settlement date in the contract of sale was ambiguous and if the vendor's and nominee's attempt to extend the settlement date by two years was a repudiatory act.

The court found that the settlement date was not ambiguous and was to occur within a given year but no specific date was expressed in the contract. The objective background circumstances were relevant in determining the meaning of the settlement date. The court also found that the vendor and nominee's attempt to extend the settlement date by two years was not a repudiatory act as the purchaser had given permission to the nominee to seek an extension and the conduct was consistent with the intention to be bound by and perform the contractual obligations. The court held that valuable consideration had been given and there was no repudiatory conduct established.

The court dismissed the claim and ordered Melbourne Yifang Group Pty Ltd to pay the costs of Guangao a Group Pty Ltd. The court referred to Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Pty Ltd v Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd, Pacific Brands Sport & Leisure Pty Ltd v Underworks Pty Ltd, Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd and Lopes v Taranto in reaching its decision.