MILSTED & MILSTED

In *Milsted & Milsted*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine whether a party to a contract for the sale of land was entitled to terminate the contract due to the other party's failure to comply with a notice to complete. The dispute arose after the vendor issued a notice to complete to the purchaser, alleging a breach of contract. The purchaser contended that the notice was invalid and that the vendor was not entitled to terminate the agreement.

The central legal issue before the Court was the validity of the notice to complete. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the notice satisfied the requirements of the standard contract for the sale of land, and whether the alleged breach by the purchaser was sufficiently material to justify the vendor's purported termination. The Court also considered the principles governing the exercise of a right to terminate a contract for breach.

Carew J found that the notice to complete was invalid because it did not specify a reasonable time for completion, a requirement under the contract. The Court reasoned that a notice to complete must provide a party with a genuine opportunity to remedy the breach, and a time frame that is demonstrably insufficient for that purpose renders the notice ineffective. Consequently, the vendor's subsequent termination of the contract was also deemed unlawful. The Court ordered that the contract remained on foot.