Shakibaee v Chan

In Shakibaee v Chan, the parties entered into a contract for the sale of a strata title unit. The dispute arose over the interpretation of the settlement date clause in the contract, which stipulated that settlement would occur "on or before seven days after issue of strata plan number." The case came before the court to determine whether the phrase "after titles available for dealing" meant the titles were available for immediate dealing or whether it required an additional step of lodgement for registration. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the failure to settle by the due date and the late payment of the deposit, coupled with the tendering of an unstamped transfer, constituted a repudiation of the contract.

The court considered the phrase "after titles available for dealing" and whether it meant that the titles were ready for immediate dealing or if it required the lodgement for registration. The court also examined whether the failure to settle by the due date and the tendering of an unstamped transfer constituted a repudiation. The court concluded that the phrase "after titles available for dealing" was meant to indicate that the titles were available for immediate dealing, and the requirement for lodgement for registration was a subsequent step. The court found that the failures did not amount to a repudiation, as the vendor had not unequivocally refused to perform the contract.

In its reasoning, the court distinguished the case from Sinnatamby v Cooper Corporation Pty Ltd, where the settlement date was tied to the issue of strata titles. The court held that the contract in this case was different and did not provide assistance in interpreting the current contract. The court found that the phrase "after titles available for dealing" meant that the titles were ready for dealing, not that they required registration. The court also determined that the vendor's actions did not amount to a repudiation, as there was no clear refusal to perform the contract.

The court ordered that the vendor was not in breach of the contract and that the purchaser's claims for repudiation were dismissed. The court did not award any damages or orders for specific performance, as the vendor had not repudiated the contract.