Contracts involving property are often ‘messy', with obligations on the vendor (and sometimes the purchaser) extending beyond the completion date. This can cause problems when one of the parties fails to fulfil their post-completion obligations, thus causing a breach of contract.
When a contract is breached, the party that suffers from the breach can seek various types of resolution.
Normally, the offended party will seek financial compensation in the form of damages. Alternatively, they may seek an order of the court requiring the other party to do what they have contracted to do (this is called an order for ‘specific performance’ in legal terminology).
If the breach is serious, the aggrieved party may seek to rescind the contract, effectively meaning that the contract is cancelled and they should be restored to the position they were in before the contract was made.
Recently, a purchaser of a warehouse attempted to obtain rescission of the purchase contract because the vendor had not (as agreed in the contract), arranged for the property to be provided with a directly- metered electricity supply. A covenant that he should supply a separately-metered water supply had been complied with.
The court considered that to set aside the whole contract over the failure to provide the electricity supply was not warranted. The purchaser had been able to make use of the building and a claim for damages would provide sufficient compensation.
The courts are not normally willing to see a contract fail over what might be regarded as relatively minor matters. If you enter into a contract and regard a specific aspect of it as crucial, it is normally possible to have the contract written to reflect this if the other side agrees.