Budiyanto v KPI 6 Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1313
The vendor did not have a right to terminate the contract, as the obligation to replace the deposit bond was not expressed to be an essential term and time was not of the essence; termination was invalid without a proper notice to perform; the contract remains on foot.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Principal Judgment / Determination Following Hearing
- Outcome
- Vendor's termination of contract invalid; contract remains on foot.
- Legal Topics
- ['contract for Sale of Land' 'deposit Bond' 'essential Term' 'right to Terminate Contract' 'notice to Perform' 'time Stipulation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Determination Following Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether vendor validly terminated contract for breach regarding deposit bond replacement' 'Whether time stipulation in contract was an essential term giving rise to right to terminate' 'Whether notice to perform issued so as to make performance essential' 'Whether contract was varied or estoppel applied']
Ratio Decidendi
The vendor did not have a right to terminate the contract, as the obligation to replace the deposit bond was not expressed to be an essential term and time was not of the essence; termination was invalid without a proper notice to perform; the contract remains on foot.
Court Disposition
Vendor's termination of contract invalid; contract remains on foot.
Orders
- ["Declaration that vendor's termination was invalid and contract remains on foot" "Defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings to date"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment