256 / 300
parlous state that you must not do it."
These considerations seem to me to bring this case
within the principles I have stated. But, in case that
principle is wrong, I would also say that the case falls
within the category of undue influence of the second
class stated by Cotton L.J. in
Allcard v Skinner,
36
Ch.I). 145, 171. I have no doubt that the assistant
bank manager acted in the utmost good faith and was
straightforward and genuine. Indeed the father said so.
But beyond doubt he was acting in the interests of the
hank—to get further security for a had debt. There was
such a relationship of trust and confidence between
them that the bank ought not to have swept up his sole
remaining asset into its hands—for nothing—without
his having independent advice. I would therefore allow
this appeal.
[Lloyd's Bank Ltd. v Bundv; (1974) 3 W.L.R., 501 —
C.C.]
In an option to purchase a freehold, time is not of the
essence of the contract unless stated, and a delay of
one month by the plaintiffs in not exercising their
option did not amount to a repudiation of the
contract.
By letter dated 30 April 1972 the plaintiffs exercised an
option to purchase a freehold property from the defen-
dant and, by condition 1 of the Statutory Form of
Conditions of Sale 1925, the date for completion was
Monday, June 19. The plaintiffs failed to complete on
that date. On Friday, June 23, the defendant's solici-
tors wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors and enclosed a
notice, purportedly in accordance with condition 9 of
the Statutory Form of Conditions of Sale, requiring
completion "within 21 days" from June 23. The letter
was received by the plaintiffs' solicitors not earlier than
June 24, but they were unable to state whether it was
delivered at their office by Saturday's or Monday s post.
The plaintiffs did not complete and, on July 20, the
defendant's solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors
accepting the plaintiffs' failure to complete as a repu-
diation of the contract. The plaintiffs brought an
action for specific performance of the contract, hut at
the trial they accepted the defendant's letter of July 20
as a repudiation of the contract and claimed damages.
On the questions whether the notice to complete was
valid and whether, if the defendant had wrongfully
repudiated the contract, the plaintiffs were entitled to
damages :
Held
by Walton J. giving judgment for the plaintiffs,
(I) that even if the defendant had proved that the
notice to complete had been received at the office of the
plaintiffs' solicitors on Saturday, June 24, the notice
was invalid because the defendant had only given the
plaintiffs 20 days within which to complete and, in any
event, under condition 9 of the Statutory Form and
Conditions of Sale, they had to give "at least 21 days'
notice", which had to he 21 days excluding the day of
service and the date for completion.
Quaere.
Whether a notice to complete received at a
solicitors' office on a Saturday was received within the
hours of business.
(2) That time never became of the essence of the
contract nor had there been such a delay in completion
on the part of the plaintiffs as amounted to a repudia-
tion of the contract and, therefore, in the circumstances,
the defendant had wrongfully repudiated the contract
by his letter of July 20; that both in equity and common
law the plaintiffs were discharged from performing
any condition precedent which would otherwise have
fallen on them to discharge but for the defendant's
repudiation and, accordingly, since they did not have to
show that they were ready, willing and able to complete
the contract, they were entitled to damages arising from
the defendant's fundamental breach of the contract.
[Rightside Properties v Gray (1974) 3 W.L.R. 484—
Ch.D ]
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
The Council of the New Zealand Law Society, Welling-
ton, and the legal profession throughout New Zealand,
extend to our members a warm invitation to attend the
Triennial Conference of the Society which will be held
in Wellington from 3 to 8 April 1975.
Plans are still being formulated and as soon as regis-
tration forms and information leaflets are available, a
supply will be despatched to the Law Society.
MADRID CONGRESS ON REGISTRATION LAW
The Board of Governors of the Second International
Congress of Registration Law, held in Madrid from
30 September to 5 October 1974, invited Mr. Desmond
L. McAllister, Registrar of Deeds and Titles, as Irish
Delegate and to submit papers on the themes to be
discussed. Mr. McAllister has now published his book
on Registration of Title in Ireland. It is hoped to
publish subsequently a summary of some of the papers
read at the Congress.
253