A complex development agreement containing a put option that is exercisable only upon fulfilment of multiple contingencies (failure of the primary development purpose, rejection of alternative strategies, and failure to sell within a specified period) is not a 'relevant contract' under s 364 of PAMDA. The decision in Vale 1 v Delorain, which rejected the 'substance test', does not dictate that any agreement containing a put option relating to residential land is necessarily a 'relevant contract'; Vale decided only that marketing provisions added to a standalone option agreement did not deprive it of its character as a 'relevant contract'. The consumer protection purpose of Chapter 11 does not require extending the definition to cover commercial development agreements where the parties cannot aptly be described as 'buyer' and 'seller' of residential property.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.