Putt v Perfect Builders Pty Ltd

The case of Putt v Perfect Builders Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser regarding the sale of an apartment. The contract for the sale was conditional on the purchasers obtaining a loan of a specified amount from a designated lender. The contract included a clause that allowed the vendor to terminate the contract if the purchasers failed to immediately apply for the loan or did not do everything reasonably required to obtain loan approval. The purchasers failed to secure the loan, and the vendor exercised the right to terminate the contract. The purchasers sought to have the contract enforced, claiming the vendor had wrongfully terminated the agreement. The dispute was brought before the court under the summary procedure provisions of the Property Law Act 1958.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the vendor was justified in terminating the contract for the sale of the apartment. The court had to determine if the purchasers' failure to secure the loan entitled the vendor to terminate the contract and if there were any circumstances that justified the return of the purchasers' deposit. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the purchasers had taken reasonable steps to secure the loan and if the vendor had exercised the right to terminate the contract in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

The court examined the terms of the contract and the conduct of the purchasers in relation to the loan application process. It found that the purchasers had not taken reasonable steps to secure the loan as required by the contract. The court also concluded that there were no circumstances that would justify the return of the deposit under section 49(2) of the Property Law Act 1958. The court held that the vendor was justified in terminating the contract and dismissed the purchasers' claim for specific performance.

As a result, the court ruled in favour of the vendor and dismissed the purchasers' claim. The contract for the sale of the apartment was terminated, and the purchasers were not entitled to any refund of their deposit. The court's decision was based on the purchasers' failure to comply with the terms of the contract regarding the loan application and the absence of any circumstances warranting the return of the deposit.