Velik v Steingold

In *Velik v Steingold*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a dispute arising from a contract for the sale of land. The purchasers, the appellants, appealed against orders made by the primary judge which had, in effect, found that they had repudiated the contract. The vendor, the respondent, contended that the purchasers had repudiated the contract by failing to complete on the agreed date, and that a valid notice to complete had been served.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the contract required fourteen clear days' notice to complete, and if not, whether any shorter period was permissible. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the purchasers had repudiated the contract by failing to complete on the agreed date, given that a valid notice to complete had not been served, and whether their insistence on an erroneous interpretation of the contract, despite acting in good faith, constituted repudiation, particularly in circumstances where the vendor had failed to point out the precise error in their interpretation.

The Court of Appeal found that the notice to complete served by the vendor was invalid because it did not provide the required fourteen clear days' notice. Consequently, the purchasers' failure to complete on the original settlement date did not amount to a repudiation of the contract. The court reasoned that while the purchasers had insisted on an erroneous interpretation of the contract, their actions were taken in good faith, and the vendor had not taken steps to clarify the correct interpretation. Therefore, the purchasers had not evinced an intention to be no longer bound by the contract.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside. The purchasers were directed to file short minutes of order consistent with the reasons for judgment, with further directions for submissions if agreement on the minutes could not be reached.