Mordue v Kroone

The case of Mordue v Kroone involved a dispute between the defendant, Kroone, and the plaintiff, Mordue. The nature of the disagreement was that Kroone, as the vendor, sought leave to rescind a contract of sale for a property. This application arose after the court had already ordered specific performance of the contract, which had not yet been completed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: firstly, whether the contractual right to rescind could be exercised by a party in default, and secondly, whether the notice provided by Kroone to Mordue was a valid notice to perform. The court needed to determine whether the notice provided by Kroone was sufficient to allow them to terminate or rescind the contract. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the notice was in fact a notice to perform or if it was some other form of communication.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that a party in default cannot exercise a contractual right to rescind. The court found that the notice provided by Kroone to Mordue was not a notice to perform but was instead a notice of a different nature. The court reasoned that since the notice did not comply with the requirements of a valid notice to perform, it did not provide grounds for termination or rescission of the contract. Consequently, the application by Kroone to rescind the contract was dismissed.

The court’s decision was that the notice provided by Kroone did not constitute a valid notice to perform. The court therefore rejected Kroone's application for leave to rescind the contract of sale. This ruling confirmed that the contractual obligations remained in force and that the court's earlier order for specific performance remained binding.