Mehmet v Benson [1965] HCA 18; (1965) 113 CLR 295
- High Court of Australia
- Judges: Barwick CJ, McTiernan and Windeyer JJ.
- Judgment date: 15 April 1965
- Area of law: Contract for sale of land; specific performance
Key Facts (Mehmet v Benson)
The case concerns a dispute over a contract for the sale of land between Mehmet (the purchaser) and Benson (the vendor).
The contract, signed on December 20, 1956, involved a land purchase for £16,000, payable in installments.
Mehmet paid the initial deposit of £3,000, followed by another installment of £3,000.
The remaining amount was to be paid in six annual instalments of £1,500 each, with a final payment of £1,000 due in 1964. Interest was set at 7% per year, reduced to 6% for prompt payment.
The contract stated that “time shall be of the essence”, meaning delays in payments could allow the vendor to rescind the contract.
Mehmet failed to pay an instalment of £1,500 due on February 28, 1959 and ceased interest payments after August 1958.
Despite this, Benson accepted late/partial payments toward the purchase price.
Mehmet later proposed a financial arrangement to clear his dues. But in November 1959, Benson issued a rescission notice, declaring the contract void and forfeiting the payments Mehmet had already made.
Mehmet contested the rescission and sought specific performance, arguing that the contract was still in effect.
Legal Issues
Was the rescission valid?
Was Mehmet entitled to specific performance?
Did Mehmet delay too long in filing the lawsuit? (Doctrine of Laches)
High Court’s Key Findings in Mehmet v Benson
The court found that Benson had previously accepted late payments, effectively waiving the “time is of the essence” clause in the contract. Due to this, Benson’s rescission notice was deemed ineffective. It waived his right to insist on strict compliance with the payment schedule.
Since time was no longer of the essence, Mehmet was not in breach of an essential term when he failed to make payments on time.
The court considered whether Mehmet had been financially capable of fulfilling his obligations. Despite his financial difficulties, the court determined that he had not abandoned the contract.
The court found that Mehmet did not act unreasonably in delaying his claim for specific performance.
Decision
High Court ruled in favor of Mehmet and ordered specific performance of the contract.
Mehmet was allowed to complete the purchase, provided he paid the outstanding amount.
Benson’s cross-appeal for forfeiture of payments was dismissed.
Key Legal Takeaways
“Time of the essence” can be waived by the conduct of the parties (e.g., accepting late payments).
A vendor cannot rescind a contract arbitrarily after showing leniency in enforcing payment deadlines.
Laches (delay in bringing a claim) is not an absolute bar to specific performance unless the delay is excessive and prejudicial.
Courts may enforce contracts (specific performance) even when the buyer defaults, provided that the breach was not an essential term and they remain willing to complete the purchase.
References:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1965/18.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: