Preliminary

(1) Despite the heat generated during argument, I apprehend that the short question at issue in this appeal to be whether it was the appellants or the respondents who were in breach of their contractual obligations. The resolution of that question does not, in my opinion, involve any novel or difficult point of principle. Rather is this a case that calls for an application of settled principles of law to particular facts. The background against which the question central to this appeal falls to be resolved may be shortly stated.

The background

(2) This appeal arises out of the trial of two consolidated actions. I must mention that there are ten other appeals in respect of connected matters and interlocutory applications. These were adjourned with the consent of all counsel who were agreeable that our views upon the present appeal will have a direct effect upon the outcome of some, if not all, of the other appeals.

(3) The first appellant was at all material times the owner of about 400 acres of land known as Kayangan Heights. The land in question was sub-divided into about 612 vacant bungalow lots. Of these, the first appellant sold 235 lots