Inshani Ward

‘Subject to’: why these words can be a trap when contracting if you are not clear about what you intend.

‘Subject to’: why these words can be a trap when contracting if you are not clear about what you intend.

The specific wording of a contract is crucial to its interpretation and may be beneficial or a trap to parties. Many parties fail to understand the implications that the well-known phrase ‘subject to contract’ will have on their agreements. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 is the leading Australian case which examines the consequences of certain wording on parties to a contract, and whether such wording leads to an enforceable and binding contract.