Rolls v Radford

In the case of Rolls v Radford, the dispute involved the termination of a contract for the purchase of a proposed lot. The special condition of the contract stated that it was contingent on the registration of a subdivision of an existing lot, leading to the creation of the proposed lot. The contract was executed with the registered owners of the existing lot, who continued to be listed as the owners of the new lot after the subdivision was registered. Each owner then transferred their respective interest, resulting in sole ownership of the new lot. Clause 7.3 of the contract stipulated that the vendor would be the registered owner of the land at the completion date. The contract also included a right of termination for breach of this clause. The primary issues were whether the contract was ambiguous and whether it had been breached.

The court found that the contract was not ambiguous and that the defendants had indeed breached it by not becoming the sole registered owners of the land by the completion date. The court also ruled that the written instrument accurately reflected the common intention of the parties. As a result, the contract was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff. The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff, declared the contract's lawful termination, and ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the $50,000 deposit paid.