Buildev Development v PIC Sales [2003] NSWSC 1245

Buildev Development v PIC Sales [2003] NSWSC 1245

There was no serious question to be tried that the plaintiff validly extended the time for exercise of the option because clause 4 required the extension notice to be accompanied by a bank cheque and the plaintiff provided only its own personal cheque. The substantial performance doctrine did not apply to the exercise of this contractual power, which required precise fulfilment of its conditions. Relief against forfeiture was unavailable because the option expired by effluxion of time and no forfeiture occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend a Caveat / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application to Extend Caveat
Outcome
Caveat not extended.
Legal Topics
['option to Purchase' 'contractual Right to Extend Time for Exercise of Option' 'strict Compliance With Conditions for Exercise of Contractual Power' 'substantial Performance' 'caveats Against Dealings' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'estoppel']
['contracts' 'conveyancing' 'equity'] ['option to Purchase' 'contractual Right to Extend Time for Exercise of Option' 'strict Compliance With Conditions for Exercise of Contractual Power' 'substantial Performance' 'caveats Against Dealings' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'estoppel']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Extend a Caveat / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application to Extend Caveat

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the plaintiff validly exercised the contractual power to extend the time for exercise of the option when the notice was accompanied by a personal cheque rather than a bank cheque.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the proviso to clause 4 requiring satisfaction that the need for extension was due solely to Council delays had been satisfied.' 'Whether estoppel prevented the defendant from objecting to the extension.' 'Whether relief against forfeiture was available in relation to the expiry of the option.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no serious question to be tried that the plaintiff validly extended the time for exercise of the option because clause 4 required the extension notice to be accompanied by a bank cheque and the plaintiff provided only its own personal cheque. The substantial performance doctrine did not apply to the exercise of this contractual power, which required precise fulfilment of its conditions. Relief against forfeiture was unavailable because the option expired by effluxion of time and no forfeiture occurred.

Court Disposition

Caveat not extended.

Orders

  • ['The Court declined to make an order extending the caveat.' "The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the hearing."]