Scali Properties Pty Ltd v Crittenden
Case
•
[2009] QSC 290
•14 September 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Scali Properties Pty Ltd v Crittenden [2009] QSC 290
[2009] QSC 290
14 September 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Scali Properties Pty Ltd v Crittenden involved a dispute between the vendor, Scali Properties, and the purchaser, Crittenden, regarding the sale of two properties in Surfers Paradise. The vendor sought to terminate the contract for sale due to alleged breaches by the purchaser, while the purchaser argued that the vendor had lost the right to terminate. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the vendor had the right to terminate the contract due to breaches by the purchaser and, if so, whether this right had been waived or lost. The court needed to determine the circumstances under which the vendor's right to terminate accrued and whether any actions by the vendor indicated a waiver of this right.
The court found that the vendor did have the right to terminate the contract due to breaches by the purchaser. However, it held that the vendor had effectively waived this right through their conduct, particularly by continuing to accept payments from the purchaser and allowing the completion of the sale. The court reasoned that the vendor's acceptance of ongoing payments and the purchaser's performance under the contract indicated an intention to affirm the contract, thereby losing the right to terminate. As a result, the court upheld the contracts for sale and ordered that they remain in effect. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the vendor had the right to terminate the contract due to breaches by the purchaser and, if so, whether this right had been waived or lost. The court needed to determine the circumstances under which the vendor's right to terminate accrued and whether any actions by the vendor indicated a waiver of this right.
The court found that the vendor did have the right to terminate the contract due to breaches by the purchaser. However, it held that the vendor had effectively waived this right through their conduct, particularly by continuing to accept payments from the purchaser and allowing the completion of the sale. The court reasoned that the vendor's acceptance of ongoing payments and the purchaser's performance under the contract indicated an intention to affirm the contract, thereby losing the right to terminate. As a result, the court upheld the contracts for sale and ordered that they remain in effect. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Breach of Contract
-
Rescission or Termination
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Steer v Burchill [2017] QDC 206
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Lai v Soineva
[2011] QSC 247
Steer v Burchill
[2017] QDC 206
Lai v Soineva
[2011] QSC 247
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Wendt v Bruce
[1931] HCA 9
Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd
[1920] HCA 64
Visscher v Giudice
[2009] HCA 34