I shall state only the salient facts as I see them. At the end of September 1959, and apparently until November, both the appellant, whom I shall call the purchaser, and the respondent, the vendor, regarded the contract of 23rd December 1956 as being still on foot notwithstanding that instalments of purchase money were much in arrears. The purchaser had paid £7,500 of the purchase money, nearly half the total price, and until about August 1958 he had also paid interest on the unpaid balance. Throughout 1959 he was in financial difficulties. By October and November bankruptcy proceedings against him were pending. He could not pay the amounts then falling due under the contract. On 9th November, the vendor, purporting to be relying upon the terms of the contract, gave notice to the purchaser that the contract was at an end and that the purchaser had forfeited to him, the vendor, all the moneys that he had paid. The ground relied upon in the notice was the purchaser's failure to pay the sum of £1,500, being the instalment of purchase money due on 28th February 1959, and interest amounting to £540 due at 20th August 1959. But as I see the facts, the vendor had by his conduct waived a strict compliance with the provisions for times of payment. The witness Champion said that almost weekly throughout 1959 he asked the purchaser to pay what was owing - that always he replied that he was not then able to do so. These repeated requests for payment of amounts long overdue were, in the circumstances, inconsistent with the contractual stipulations as to time being still essential. This case is not like one in which there was an extension of time for payment of a particular instalment until some specified date. Nor is it like one where the purchaser could rely upon nothing more than the acceptance of some payments after their due dates as displacing an obligation to pay instalments on time. It is one in which the vendor by his conduct - by continued failure, however induced, to insist upon payment at the stipulated times and continued assertions of a readiness to accept payment out of time - must be deemed to have waived the condition that time was to be essential: cf. Tropical Traders Ltd. v. Goonan [1] ; and see Carr v. J. A. Berriman Pty. Ltd. [2] per Fullagar J. [3] . The vendor had thus by his conduct precluded himself from abruptly rescinding. He could, of course, have given notice that he would rescind unless the overdue amounts were paid within some limited time and future instalments on their due dates. Had he done that, he would have put a period to leniency and limited the consequences of past latitude, and made time again essential. It seems from an affidavit made by the vendor's solicitor - not in these proceedings but in those for the removal of the purchaser's caveat - that in June 1959 the purchaser's solicitor was told that the vendor would withhold any action to enforce payment for six weeks, as the purchaser proposed to sell another property and from the proceeds to discharge the whole debt. Direct evidence of this conversation was not given in these proceedings. In any event it did not, I think, in the circumstances make time again of the essence of the contract. The six weeks elapsed and negotiations continued still on the basis that the contract was on foot; and nothing more was said to suggest that time was essential. I consider, therefore, that the notice of rescission and of forfeiture was not effective to put an end to the contract.