Willis v Crosland

In Willis v Crosland, the primary dispute was whether the purchaser's attempt to terminate a contract for the sale of land was valid. The contract contained a clause that allowed the purchaser to terminate if certain conditions were met, including obtaining a report identifying a major building defect, giving notice, and not being in default. The purchaser gave notice of termination shortly before the deposit was due, but had not yet fully paid the deposit. The vendor argued that the purchaser was in default because they had not fully paid the deposit. The purchaser claimed they were not in default and had the right to terminate the contract.

The legal issues before the court were whether the purchaser's failure to fully pay the deposit rendered them 'in default', thus invalidating their right to terminate, and whether the vendor had properly raised the issue of the purchaser's repudiation of the contract. The court examined the terms of the contract and the actions of the purchaser, including whether the purchaser had made a clear and unequivocal statement of unwillingness to perform their obligations. The court also considered whether the report provided a sufficient basis for the purchaser to terminate the contract.

The court found that the purchaser's failure to fully pay the deposit did not affect their ability to exercise the contractual right to terminate if they were not in default. The court held that the purchaser was not in actual breach of the contract, and that the vendor's contention regarding the purchaser's repudiation was not sufficiently raised below. The court also determined that the report provided a proper basis for terminating the contract. As a result, the purchaser was deemed 'not then in default' and their notice of termination was valid. The appeal was allowed, and the notice of contention was dismissed.