Talks after completion notice did not save failed land purchase

CM Recycling lost its attempt to enforce a land purchase after failing to complete a transaction expressly agreed as a cash sale. On 24 July, the Supreme Court upheld the termination and refused relief from forfeiture of the ten per cent deposit.

The seller had become ready to complete and repeatedly sought payment or an undertaking before issuing a 21-day notice making time essential. The court found that period reasonable in the circumstances. It also held that the contract’s postal-service provision was a deeming mechanism, not an exclusive method: the notice had actually reached the buyer or its lawyer by email and hand delivery.

The buyer argued that later discussions had waived the notice. The judge rejected any automatic rule that conversations after a deadline necessarily revive the bargain. What mattered was their substance and context; here, no extension was promised and the buyer knew the seller retained the right to terminate.

The seller returned the payments above the deposit. The court found no equitable basis for further relief, including on evidence that funds had been accessible but were not tendered. Judgment and costs went to the defendants; the reasoning does not make every 21-day notice reasonable or every deposit immune from relief.

The finding on waiver depended on the communications and conduct proved in this transaction. Complete official judgment reviewed; subsequent appeals or treatment have not been checked.