Meehan v Jones [1982] HCA 52

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ. Meehan v Jones [1982] HCA 52

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs. Order of Dunn J. set aside and in lieu thereof:

(1) Order that judgment be given for the plaintiff on the claim and on the first defendant's counterclaim;

(2) Order that the first defendant specifically perform the contract dated 14 March 1979 alleged in par. 2 of the statement of claim;

(3) Against the second defendant, declare that said contract is binding on the parties thereto;

(4) Order that the defendants pay the costs of and incidental to the action other than the counterclaim;

(5) Order that first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the counterclaim.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1982, Sept. 17 Gibbs C.J.

The most important question on this appeal, and that on which the learned judges of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland were in disagreement, is whether a contract of sale of land was binding when it included a term which made the contract subject to certain conditions — particularly a condition making it subject to the purchaser or his nominee receiving approval for finance on satisfactory terms and conditions.

The facts of the case are more fully stated in the judgment of my brother Mason, which I have had the advantage of reading, and I need set out only enough to provide a basis for my own observations.

By a contract in writing, dated 14 March 1979, the first respondents ("the vendors") agreed to sell, and the appellant ("the purchaser") agreed to buy, certain land at Roma in Queensland, on which an oil refinery had been built, for $800,000. The contract recited (untruly) that the vendors had received the sum of $80,000 by way of deposit and in part payment of the purchase money and continued as follows: