Fitzgerald v Masters [1956] HCA 53

i A Ex Foll Peel HP foley Foll BHP Fol Fetes Avmeae Paae ng (fimorSea) y [firleum Pero Oficepeoy fi raster i

pdate hte e

re QP RALR VRocelie Cid '10 Fars 87 Minter for Miner for y Ninaner fo? . a Contre 1 entra 1994) 121

eee a a

| a a oo ra ¥ fattrays iplex Hughes v # $20 Seinton Mensa, «Surgow HIGH COURT 8 tn, (1956, & A'CourtLid ~ Management 132 1 fiss7 2NZLR 19 Lid (2000)

fucka Pry F BCL 436 id 'ropicus ee %, orchids Foll Cons . Insurance Osric ki OF al v TRE ER — Woburn Bows Resifenrial (3001588 ATR (2005) 36 (pits are GOS

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

FITZGERALD AND ANOTHER . 5 ' APPELLANTS ; DEFENDANTS, AND MASTERS. ; : : ' ; . . REsponpenr, PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H. C. or A, Contract — Formation — Land — Interest — Sale — Document Terms — Meaning

1956. Parties — Intention — Conduct Default — Rights — Assertion — Abandon. WwW ment — Specific performance — Laches — Reasonableness — Readiness — Sypyey, Willingness — Moratorium Acts 1930-1950. April 16-18; . tase ty Sept. 11. In 1927 the plaintiff made a contract in writing with the deceased of whose

will the defendants were executors for the purchase of an interest in the

ETE deceased's farm. As from the date of the contract the farm was to be worked

4 ee in effect as a partnership but the actual transfer of the interest in the land was u

Taylor SS. not to take place till the plaintiff had paid in full. Amongst other provisions

was one that the plaintiff was to pay for the interest by a deposit and by instalments. The final clause was expressed to embody a set of conditions of sale "so far as they are inconsistent " (sic). In fact no such set of con- ditions existed. The plaintiff paid more than half the purchase price almost at once, and in 1931 offered to pay a substantial part of what was outstanding, but at the deceased's request he did not do so; in 1932 he had the contract stamped and registered. Meanwhile the working partnership had been observed but later in 1932 the plaintiff left the farm. Between then and 1948 he had, apparently, no connexion with the working of it ; in that year, however, he began a correspondence over the contract with the deceased which continued till the latter's death in 1951. In 1953 the plaintiff began a suit for specific performance against the defendants executors.