The winner of a tender to execute a complex project did not meet its tender obligations, and nearly three months after the last day it was given to cure the breach had passed, the tenderer terminated the agreement between the parties due to the tender winner's non-compliance with its contractual obligations.
The Supreme Court rejected the tender winner's claim for a delay in executing the termination in light of the nature of the project. In the case where the non-defaulting party gave the breaching party an extension to the performance of the contract, termination of the contract must be made within a reasonable time from the end of the extension, otherwise, the delay may be considered a waiver of the right to terminate. The concept of 'reasonable time' is a dynamic concept which length may vary from case to case, taking into account the essence and nature of the contract, the behavior of the parties, the special circumstances of the case and even late developments after the prior notice was given. Here the contract stipulated mandatory fourteen-day prior notice to correct the beach as a precondition for terminating the contract and nearly three months lapsed between the deadline set for the purpose of correcting the beach and the actual termination. However, bearing in mind that this was a very complex and wide-ranging project, the conduct of the tenderer does not amount to an unreasonable delay, and the contract can be terminated under the prior notice given more than three months earlier.