Tran v Bakour

Tran and Bakour were the parties to a contract for the sale of a property. The dispute centred on whether the purchaser, Tran, was ready, willing and able to complete the purchase, and whether the vendor, Bakour, was entitled to withhold completion on the grounds of hardship. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues were whether Tran had demonstrated readiness, willingness, and ability to complete the transaction, and if so, whether the court should grant specific performance as a remedy. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the doctrine of hardship could be invoked as a defence by Bakour.

The court examined the evidence to determine if Tran had indeed shown readiness, willingness and ability to complete the contract. It was noted that Tran had satisfied all conditions precedent and had taken all necessary steps towards completion. The court found that Tran had met the criteria required to be considered ready, willing and able. Regarding the hardship defence, the court held that it did not provide a valid reason to deny specific performance, as the doctrine of hardship was not applicable in this context. The court reasoned that the hardship must be of a significant nature and must not have been self-imposed or reasonably foreseeable. Since no such hardship was proven, the defence was not successful.

The Supreme Court concluded that Tran was ready, willing and able to complete the purchase and that specific performance should be granted. The court dismissed Bakour's defence of hardship as it did not meet the necessary legal criteria. The final orders included a mandate for Bakour to complete the sale of the property to Tran within the stipulated timeframe.