For the reasons expressed by Pidgeon and Franklyn JJ I consider that the purchaser complied with the duty to act honestly. Accordingly, I agree with their Honours that the appeal fails. In coming to this conclusion, I express no opinion on whether the decision in Meehan v Jones [1982] HCA 52; (1982) 149 CLR 571 requires that "subject to finance" clauses should generally be construed to require the purchaser to act both honestly and reasonably.

If contrary to the view that I have expressed, the purchaser was obliged to act reasonably, then I accept for the reasons expressed by Pidgeon J that on the evidence as a whole, Mr Gunzburg acted reasonably. Underlying this conclusion are two concessions made by counsel for the appellant during the course of argument. First, that the applicable test was whether a person in the circumstances of the particular purchaser acted reasonably; and second, that the projected rental income of the property would not be sufficient to make the capital repayments required by the lender.