Journal of Contract Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 287-299, 2006
12 Pages Posted: 2 Dec 2010
Date Written: December 1, 2010
Parties to a contract may agree to restrict or qualify the right of one party to terminate for another’s breach or repudiation. A typical clause may require notice to the defaulting party, and an opportunity to rectify the default or show cause why the right to terminate ought not be exercised. Other clauses may require the right to terminate to be exercised within a limited period of time.
In Wallace-Smith v Thiess Infraco (Swanston) Pty Ltd (2005) 218 ALR 1;  FCAFC 49, the Full Federal Court considered the effect of a clause restricting the right to terminate. This article examines critically that decision and the principles governing the operation of such clauses. It suggests that there are several flaws in the reasoning of the Full Court.
Keywords: Contract, Breach of contract, Termination
JEL Classification: K10, K12, K30
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Courtney, Wayne and Curtin, Ben, Construction Goes Off the Rails (December 1, 2010). Journal of Contract Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 287-299, 2006; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 10/135. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1718205