Maynard v Goode [1926] HCA 4

Maynard v Goode [1926] HCA 4

The contract's stipulations relating to the postponement of rent were solely for Goode's benefit and could be and were waived. The requirement that the transfer of Goode's block 'goes through in reasonable time' was not a condition precedent, but a condition subsequent, which was fulfilled. Time was not of the essence, and performance occurred within a reasonable time. Goode was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract. Thus, Goode was entitled to specific performance.

Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: George David Goode; Defendant/respondent: David Crosby; Defendant/appellant: Charles Maynard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decree of Supreme Court varied with respect to payment of the purchase-money.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Conditions Precedent and Subsequent, Waiver, Sale of Land, Readiness and Willingness to Perform
Equity Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Conditions Precedent and Subsequent Waiver Sale of Land Readiness and Willingness to Perform

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George David Goode

Plaintiff/respondent

David Crosby

Defendant/respondent

Charles Maynard

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions in a contract for sale of land under the Returned Soldiers Settlement Acts were conditions precedent or subsequent
  2. 2 Whether the vendor could repudiate the contract on grounds of non-fulfilment of such conditions
  3. 3 Whether time was of the essence of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The contract's stipulations relating to the postponement of rent were solely for Goode's benefit and could be and were waived. The requirement that the transfer of Goode's block 'goes through in reasonable time' was not a condition precedent, but a condition subsequent, which was fulfilled. Time was not of the essence, and performance occurred within a reasonable time. Goode was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract. Thus, Goode was entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decree of Supreme Court varied with respect to payment of the purchase-money.

Orders

  • Decree varied to require payment into Court to the credit of the cause rather than to Crosby before execution of necessary documents.
  • Save as to this variation, decree affirmed.