Havenbar Pty Ltd v Butterfield [1974] HCA 24

Havenbar Pty Ltd v Butterfield [1974] HCA 24

The contract sufficiently identified the land as thirty acres in the southern part of Portion IV with the northern boundary fixed by the contractual requirements, so there was no uncertainty of subject matter. The failure to have a proposal plan satisfactory to both parties by 12 December 1972 made the contract voidable, not automatically void. After that default the vendor continued to treat the contract as on foot by accepting the further deposit, and therefore could not later rely on the absence of the plan by the stipulated date; when the purchaser later sought a survey, the vendor prevented it and repudiated the contract. The purchaser was entitled to specific performance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in an Action for Specific Performance of a Contract for the Purchase of Land / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland Dismissing the Plaintiff's Action
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; the order of the Supreme Court of Queensland was set aside and specific performance ordered.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'certainty of Subject Matter' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'subdivision Plan' 'voidable Contract' 'waiver or Election After Default']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'equity'] ['specific Performance' 'certainty of Subject Matter' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'subdivision Plan' 'voidable Contract' 'waiver or Election After Default']

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

Appeal in an Action for Specific Performance of a Contract for the Purchase of Land / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland Dismissing the Plaintiff's Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract failed for uncertainty because the land to be sold was not sufficiently identified.' 'Whether condition 1(d), requiring a proposal plan satisfactory to both parties by 12 December 1972, automatically cancelled the contract when no survey plan was prepared by that date.' "Whether the vendor could later rely on the purchaser's default in not procuring a survey plan by the stipulated date after continuing to treat the contract as on foot." 'Whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance of the contract.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract sufficiently identified the land as thirty acres in the southern part of Portion IV with the northern boundary fixed by the contractual requirements, so there was no uncertainty of subject matter. The failure to have a proposal plan satisfactory to both parties by 12 December 1972 made the contract voidable, not automatically void. After that default the vendor continued to treat the contract as on foot by accepting the further deposit, and therefore could not later rely on the absence of the plan by the stipulated date; when the purchaser later sought a survey, the vendor prevented it and repudiated the contract. The purchaser was entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; the order of the Supreme Court of Queensland was set aside and specific performance ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside.' 'Judgment be entered for the plaintiff with costs.' 'Declare that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant (exhibit 3 in the action), so far as it has not already been performed, ought to be specifically performed and...