Beware the second offer!

In conveyancing of all types, it is very common that a contract will only be formed after often lengthy negotiations which may involve a counter-offer or multiple counter-offers. At common law, the laws of contract that govern these arrangements are well known and well understood. However, the legislative overlay imposed by the requirements of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) can create difficulties as illustrated by the result in Rice v Ray [2009] QDC 275.

Mortgages and insolvency

With an amalgam of statutory and common law duties, great care has always been required when considering the obligations of either mortgagees or receivers when exercising power of sale. Unfortunately, that position has only become more complicated with the enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld).

Acquire a practical overview of 'good faith' in commercial contracting

The twists and turns in the ongoing development of the implied common law good faith obligation in the commercial contractual arena continue to prove fertile academic ground. Despite a lack of guidance from the High Court, the lower courts have been besieged by claims based, in part, on the implied obligation. Although lower court authority is lacking consistency and the ‘decisions in which lower courts have recognised the legitimacy of implication of a term of good faith vary in their suggested rationales’, the implied obligation may provide some comfort to a party to ‘at least some commercial contracts’ faced with a contractual counterpart exhibiting symptoms of bad faith.

Estoppel in the face of consumer protection in land transactions- judicial reasoning or judicial intuition

Nationally, there is much legislation regulating land sale transactions, particularly in relation to seller disclosure of information. The statutes require strict compliance by a seller failing which, in general, a buyer can terminate the contract. In a number of instances, when buyers have sought to exercise these rights, sellers have alleged that buyers have either expressly or by conduct waived their rights to rely upon these statutes. This article examines the nature of these rights in this context, whether they are capable of waiver and, if so, what words or conduct might be sufficient to amount to waiver. The analysis finds that the law is in a very unsatisfactory state, that the operation of those rules that can be identified as having relevance are unevenly applied and concludes that sellers have, in the main, been unsuccessful in defeating buyers' statutory rights as a result of an alleged waiver by those buyers.

Qualified indefeasibility and the careless mortgagee

In recent years a great deal of case law has been generated in relation to mortgages where the mortgagee has not engaged in adequate identity verification of the mortgagor and the mortgage has subsequently been found to be forged. As a result, careless mortgagee provisions operate in Queensland as an exception to indefeasibility. Similar provisions are expected to commence soon in New South Wales. This article examines the mortgagee’s position with the benefit of indefeasibility and then considers the impact of the careless mortgagee provisions on the rights of a mortgagee under a forged mortgage, concluding that the provisions significantly change the dynamic between a registered mortgagee and registered owner who has not signed the mortgage. These provisions appear to give the mortgagee a conditional indefeasibility, with the intention of reducing the State’s exposure to the payment of compensation in the case of identity fraud. They are however, more successful in the case of forgery by a third party rather than forgery by a co-owner.

Floods, earthquakes and insurance coverage : issues, problems and solutions

The recent floods in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia as well as the recent earthquakes in New Zealand have again given rise to very significant uninsured losses. This article looks at the issue of cover protection against catastrophes such as floods and earthquakes affecting home buildings and contents insurance and the standard cover provisions of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth). It points also to the possibility of a national scheme to cover natural disasters including floods.

Loss of chance in medical negligence claims now a lost cause?

The question whether the loss of chance of a better medical outcome in cases of medical negligence should be recognised as actionable damage is ‘a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world.’ In April 2010, the High Court handed down its anticipated decision in the case of Tabet (by her Tutor Sheiban) v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537. The issue considered by the court was whether the appellant could claim in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. This issue had not been considered by the High Court previously, the most relevant cases being Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678 and Gavalas v Singh (2001) 3 VLR 404. Claiming for a loss of chance in a personal injury action raises questions as to recognised damage and causation, and the members of the High Court considered both of these.

Not-for-profits and risk accountability : insuring the third sector

Not for profit organisations face significant challenges in managing organisational risk. In this regard not-for-profits are not unique but they are distinguishable from their 'for-profit' counterparts in that they are less likely to have the resources to find sufficient risk management strategies and plans, are very vunerable to cyclical changes in the insurance market and are not usually in a position to pass on the costs of increased premiums to third parties such as consumers of their services. This article explores the nature and extent of risks faced by the not-for-profit sector; the appropriateness and scope of risk management to reduce and manage the likelihood and incidence of risk; and the types of insurance and options to cover risks that materialise. It concludes with a recommendation for a potential course of action.

The conceptual and operational compatibility of data breach notification and information privacy laws

Mandatory data breach notification laws are a novel and potentially important legal instrument regarding organisational protection of personal information. These laws require organisations that have suffered a data breach involving personal information to notify those persons that may be affected, and potentially government authorities, about the breach. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has proposed the creation of a mandatory data breach notification scheme, implemented via amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). However, the conceptual differences between data breach notification law and information privacy law are such that it is questionable whether a data breach notification scheme can be solely implemented via an information privacy law. Accordingly, this thesis by publications investigated, through six journal articles, the extent to which data breach notification law was conceptually and operationally compatible with information privacy law. The assessment of compatibility began with the identification of key issues related to data breach notification law. The first article, Stakeholder Perspectives Regarding the Mandatory Notification of Australian Data Breaches started this stage of the research which concluded in the second article, The Mandatory Notification of Data Breaches: Issues Arising for Australian and EU Legal Developments (‘Mandatory Notification‘). A key issue that emerged was whether data breach notification was itself an information privacy issue. This notion guided the remaining research and focused attention towards the next stage of research, an examination of the conceptual and operational foundations of both laws. The second article, Mandatory Notification and the third article, Encryption Safe Harbours and Data Breach Notification Laws did so from the perspective of data breach notification law. The fourth article, The Conceptual Basis of Personal Information in Australian Privacy Law and the fifth article, Privacy Invasive Geo-Mashups: Privacy 2.0 and the Limits of First Generation Information Privacy Laws did so for information privacy law. The final article, Contextualizing the Tensions and Weaknesses of Information Privacy and Data Breach Notification Laws synthesised previous research findings within the framework of contextualisation, principally developed by Nissenbaum. The examination of conceptual and operational foundations revealed tensions between both laws and shared weaknesses within both laws. First, the distinction between sectoral and comprehensive information privacy legal regimes was important as it shaped the development of US data breach notification laws and their subsequent implementable scope in other jurisdictions. Second, the sectoral versus comprehensive distinction produced different emphases in relation to data breach notification thus leading to different forms of remedy. The prime example is the distinction between market-based initiatives found in US data breach notification laws compared to rights-based protections found in the EU and Australia. Third, both laws are predicated on the regulation of personal information exchange processes even though both laws regulate this process from different perspectives, namely, a context independent or context dependent approach. Fourth, both laws have limited notions of harm that is further constrained by restrictive accountability frameworks. The findings of the research suggest that data breach notification is more compatible with information privacy law in some respects than others. Apparent compatibilities clearly exist as both laws have an interest in the protection of personal information. However, this thesis revealed that ostensible similarities are founded on some significant differences. Data breach notification law is either a comprehensive facet to a sectoral approach or a sectoral adjunct to a comprehensive regime. However, whilst there are fundamental differences between both laws they are not so great to make them incompatible with each other. The similarities between both laws are sufficient to forge compatibilities but it is likely that the distinctions between them will produce anomalies particularly if both laws are applied from a perspective that negates contextualisation.