The legal effect of settlement statements

The decision of Carrapetta v. Rado [2012] NSWCA 202 raises a short but very practical point relating to the right to deliver a notice to complete or have otherwise called for completion where time is of the essence of the contract in circumstances where a settlement statement subsequently sent from the seller has overstated the amount owing under the contract. It was common ground , following the oft quoted High Court decisions of Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips(1974) 131 CLR 286 and Louinder v Leis (1982) 149 CLR 509 that a Notice to Complete which called for completion outside the terms of the contract would be invalid. These decisions also further confirm the long accepted principles that a seller who is not “ready willing and able” to perform all their obligations or who is otherwise in breach of contract at the time could not deliver a Notice to Complete (at[27]).The issue in this case did not so much concern the efficacy of the Notice to Complete at the time was delivered ,but the legal effect upon the Notice to Complete of the later delivery of a settlement statement for what the buyer considered to be performance beyond that required by the contract.