Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access?
Data(s) |
01/04/2005
|
---|---|
Resumo |
This was the question that confronted Wilson J in Jarema Pty Ltd v Michihiko Kato [2004] QSC 451. Facts The plaintiff was the buyer of a commercial property at Bundall. The property comprised a 6 storey office building with a basement car park with 54 car parking spaces. The property was sold for $5 million with the contract being the standard REIQ/QLS form for Commercial Land and Buildings (2nd ed GST reprint). The contract provided for a “due diligence” period. During this period, the buyer’s solicitors discovered that there was no direct access from a public road to the car park entrance. Access to the car park was over a lot of which the Gold Coast City Council was the registered owner under a nomination of trustees, the Council holding the property on trust for car parking and town planning purposes. Due to the absence of a registered easement over the Council’s land, the buyer’s solicitors sought a reduction in the purchase price. The seller would not agree to this. Finally the sale was completed with the buyer reserving its rights to seek compensation. |
Formato |
application/pdf |
Identificador | |
Publicador |
Lawbook Company/Thomson Legal & Regulatory |
Relação |
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/42565/2/42565.pdf http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/catalogue/productdetails.asp?id=1209 Dixon, William M. (2005) Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access? The Queensland Lawyer, 25(5), pp. 233-234. |
Direitos |
Copyright 2005 Lawbook Company/Thomson Legal & Regulatory |
Fonte |
Faculty of Law |
Palavras-Chave | #180124 Property Law (excl. Intellectual Property Law) #Property Law #REIQ/QLS form #due diligence |
Tipo |
Journal Article |