3 On 18 September 2005 the second appellant, Mr Jonathon O'Dwyer, contracted with the first and second respondents, Mr Khay Tek Tan and his wife Gwek Lieng ('the vendors'), to purchase the home unit in question for $370,000 'off the plan'. A partial deposit was paid on that day. Issues arose at the trial about the payment of the balance of the deposit but those issues have been resolved. The balance of the purchase price was payable at the 'expiration of 14 days after registration of the Plan of Subdivision or issue of the Certificate of Occupancy, whichever shall be the later'. The unit was to be built on land in Mitcham owned by the vendors. It was to be one of six in the proposed development, and was designated 'Unit 6'. Later on, Mr O'Dwyer nominated his wife, the third appellant, as a co-purchaser. Later again, they nominated the first appellant, a company controlled by them, as a substitute purchaser. There were issues at the trial about the validity and effect of the nominations. Nothing of substance turns on those issues now. The appellants now accept that the only party entitled to enforce a contract for the sale of land is the original purchaser, not the original purchaser's nominee or any later nominee.[2]