SELLECK & ALBIN

In *Selleck & Albin*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a party to a contract for the sale of land was entitled to terminate the contract due to the other party's failure to comply with a notice to complete. The dispute arose after the vendor, Selleck, issued a notice to complete to the purchaser, Albin, who failed to complete the purchase by the stipulated date. Selleck then purported to terminate the contract.

The primary legal issue before Baumann J was whether the notice to complete was valid and effective, thereby entitling Selleck to terminate the contract. This required the court to consider the requirements for a valid notice to complete under Victorian contract law, particularly in relation to the time specified for completion and the nature of any defects in the notice.

Baumann J found that the notice to complete was invalid because it specified a completion date that was shorter than the period required by the contract. The court applied the principle that a notice to complete must allow a reasonable time for performance, and in this instance, the contractual period was the minimum required. As the notice failed to comply with this essential requirement, it was ineffective to make time of the essence or to found a right to terminate the contract.

Consequently, Selleck's purported termination of the contract was wrongful. The court ordered that the contract remained on foot and that Selleck was not entitled to forfeit Albin's deposit.