Prestia v Aknar

In *Prestia v Aknar*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor had failed to comply with a condition precedent.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the vendor's conduct constituted a repudiation of the contract, thereby entitling the purchaser to terminate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the vendor's failure to take steps to obtain a necessary approval within the stipulated timeframe amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract.

The Court of Appeal held that the vendor's inaction did not amount to a repudiation. Applying the principles of contract law, the court reasoned that the condition precedent was for the benefit of the vendor, and the vendor's failure to fulfil it did not necessarily indicate an intention to abandon the contract or an unwillingness to be bound by its essential terms. The court emphasised that repudiation requires a clear and unequivocal indication that a party no longer intends to be bound by the contract. In this instance, the vendor's conduct was not so fundamental as to deprive the purchaser of substantially the whole benefit of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal upholding the primary judge's decision that the purchaser was not entitled to terminate the contract.