Turner v Bladin

This case, heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria, concerned a dispute arising from an oral agreement for the sale of a quarry business. The plaintiffs, vendors, alleged that the defendant purchaser agreed to buy the business for £7,500, paid a deposit of £2,100, but failed to pay the balance of the purchase price and accrued interest. The defendant admitted the agreement but claimed the total purchase price was only £2,100 and raised the defence of the Statute of Frauds, arguing the agreement was not evidenced in writing and was not to be performed within one year, or alternatively, concerned an interest in land.

The legal issues before the court were whether the oral agreement was enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds, and if so, whether the vendor was entitled to specific performance of the contract, particularly when the claim was primarily for the outstanding purchase money. The court also considered whether the agreement, involving the sale of rights to quarry on land owned by a third party, constituted a sale of an interest in land for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds, and whether outstanding future obligations on either side precluded a decree of specific performance.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, holding that the Statute of Frauds was not a bar to the vendor's claim. The court reasoned that where the vendor's obligations under a contract for the sale of an interest in land have been fully executed, and only the purchaser's payment obligations remain, the vendor can recover the outstanding purchase money in an action of indebitatus assumpsit, which is not an action brought "on the agreement" and thus not barred by the statute. Furthermore, the court held that a contract, even with future performable obligations, is capable of specific performance, and proceedings can be commenced as soon as a party threatens to refuse performance or fails to perform a promise when due. The court found that the agreement was specifically enforceable and that the vendor was entitled to a decree of specific performance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the judgment below was modified to more precisely declare the terms of the agreement and to order the payment of overdue instalments and interest, with liberty to apply for future payments. The court also noted that even if the agreement was considered a sale of an interest in land, the vendor could still recover the overdue purchase money and interest at common law in an action of indebitatus assumpsit, as the consideration moving from the vendor had been fully executed.