Purkess v Crittenden

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning a dispute between Purkess, the appellant, and Crittenden, the respondent, regarding a contract for the sale of land. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the respondent had validly exercised an option to purchase the land, which was subject to certain conditions precedent.

The central legal issues before the Court were: firstly, whether the conditions precedent to the exercise of the option had been fulfilled or waived by the vendor; and secondly, whether the purported exercise of the option by the respondent was effective in creating a binding contract for sale. The Court also had to consider the proper interpretation of the contractual terms relating to the conditions.

The Court reasoned that the conditions precedent, which included the vendor obtaining vacant possession and the purchaser obtaining finance, were not fulfilled within the stipulated timeframe. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the vendor had waived these conditions. Consequently, the respondent's attempt to exercise the option was deemed ineffective as the preconditions for its valid exercise had not been met. The legal principle applied was that conditions precedent must be satisfied before an option can be validly exercised, unless expressly waived.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and ordering that the respondent's claim for specific performance be dismissed.