(a) That's  wrong. 

You were asked to select the statement for which Holland & another v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409 provides authority.

Holland & another v Wiltshire is authority for the statement that late performance of a contract entitles the non-defaulting party to terminate performance of the contract provided it can be inferred by the court that the time of performance was a condition of the contract.

Holland & another v Wiltshire is not authority for the statement that late performance of a contract does not entitle the non-defaulting party to terminate performance of the contract because the time of performance is always treated by the courts as a warranty, rather than a condition of the contract.

Holland & another v Wiltshire is not authority for the statement that late performance always entitles the non-defaulting party to terminate performance, because the time of performance is always treated by the courts as a condition of the contract.

Give yourself no marks for this answer.

Go to the next question...