Where a contract for sale of land provides a right to issue a notice to complete after the Date for Completion without requiring antecedent breach or unreasonable delay, the general principle from Neeta (Epping) v Phillips requiring such breach or delay does not apply. A Date for Completion ascertained by a contractual formula remains valid even if one party is relieved of the obligation to complete on that date. Non-installation of PC items does not constitute default where the contract does not require construction to be completed before contractual completion, particularly where industry practice supports post-settlement installation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.