The purchaser had made repeated complaints about the seller’s delay in completing construction.
Held: The repeated complaints formed a principal ground for justification of the short specified notice period.
Lord Parker of Waddington set out the principles by which to assess the reasonableness of a time specified in a notice for the completion of the construction of a property: ‘The time limited by such a notice is sometimes referred to as having become, by virtue of the notice, of the essence of the contract. In considering whether the time so limited is a reasonable time the Court will consider all the circumstances of the case. No doubt what remains to be done at the date of the notice is of importance, but it is by no means the only relevant fact. The fact that the purchaser has continually been pressing for completion, or has before given similar notices which he has waived, or that it is specially important to him to obtain early completion, are equally relevant facts: Macbryde v Weekes (1856) 22 Beav 533. Indeed, the dominant principle has always been that equity will only grant specific performance if, under all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to do so. It would be unjust and inequitable to allow the vendor to put forward his own unnecessary delay in the face of the purchaser’s frequent requests for expedition as a ground for allowing him further time or as rendering the time limited by such a notice as that to which I have referred an unreasonable time.’
Judges:
Lord Parker of Waddington
Citations:
[1915] AC 387
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman and Another CA 19-Mar-2010
The appellants challenged specific performance orders obliging them to complete the purchase of apartments, saying that the contracts had not complied with the 1989 Act, and that their repudiation of the contracts had been accepted. The contracts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.403475