Wright v Rabot

In the matter of *Wright v Rabot*, the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor had failed to provide vacant possession as required by the contract.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the vendor had breached the contract by failing to deliver vacant possession on the settlement date. This required the Court to interpret the meaning of "vacant possession" in the context of the contract and to determine whether the presence of a tenant, who had not yet vacated, constituted a failure to provide vacant possession.

Justice Wilson found that the vendor had indeed breached the contract. His Honour reasoned that "vacant possession" means that the purchaser is able to enter into and enjoy the property immediately upon settlement, free from any other person's occupation or right to occupy. The continued presence of the tenant, even if their lease was nearing its end, meant that the purchaser could not obtain immediate and exclusive possession. Consequently, the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract.