The Suttor v Gundowda principle — that a contractual provision making a contract void on the happening of an event that may be caused by the default of one party should be construed as making the contract voidable — is a guide to construction, not an inflexible rule of law, and gives way to sufficiently clear expressions of contrary intention such as the use of the word 'automatically'. Where parties clearly stipulate for automatic termination, a party whose default caused the triggering event is prevented from taking advantage of the automatic termination by the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong, rather than by construing the contract contrary to its clear meaning. Common law conventional estoppel remains a distinct doctrine from equitable estoppel and requires proof of significant disadvantage and that the party against whom estoppel is asserted played such a part in the adoption of the assumption that it would be unjust to permit departure.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 60 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 60 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.