Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

Land Sales Act 1984: The time limit for an application for exemption

The decision of Wilson J in Wan and Ors v NPD Property Development Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 232 also concerned the operation of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) (‘the Act’). As previously noted, s 8(1) of the Act provides that a proposed allotment of freehold land might be sold only in certain circumstances. An agreement made in contravention of s 8(1) is void. Section 19 allows a purchaser (and others) to apply for an exemption from any of the provisions of Pt 2. By s 19(6), notwithstanding s 8, a person may agree to sell a proposed allotment if the instrument that binds a person to purchase the proposed allotment is conditional upon the grant of an exemption. By s 19(7) an application for exemption must be made ‘within 30 days after the event that marks the entry of a purchaser upon the purchase of the proposed allotment.’

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (Qld) : disclosure, cooling-off and marketeers

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions are expected to commence on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide for increased jurisdiction and powers to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) enabling the Tribunal to deal with claims against marketeers. These provisions commenced on the date of assent (21 September 2001).

Ending the life of the act/omission dispute: Causation in withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining measures

My aim in this paper is to challenge the increasingly common view in the literature that the law on end of life decision making is in disarray and is in need of urgent reform. My argument is that this assessment of the law is based on assumptions about the relationship between the identity of the defendant and their conduct, and about the nature of causation, which, on examination, prove to be indefensible. I then provide a clarification of the relationship between causation and omissions which proves that the current legal position does not need modification, at least on the grounds that are commonly advanced for the converse view. This enables me, in conclusion, to clarify important conceptual and moral differences between withholding, refusing and withdrawing life-sustaining measures on the one hand, and assisted suicide and euthanasia, on the other.

Seen but not heard? The significance of shareholders under Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act

The article considers the interests of company members as stakeholders in the event of a company entering voluntary administration and suggests that while shareholders hold a residual interest, they nonetheless have an interest in ensuring that that the company is rescued and perhaps therefore have a role to play in the rescue of the company’s business. In doing so it argues that there is some inconsistency in recent changes in Ch 5 regarding the role of shareholders with some changes recognising their role while others have sought to downplay it.

The human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : a multidisciplinary workshop

Event report following a multidisciplinary workshop at the Economic and Social Research Council's Genomics Policy and Research Forum, which took place at the University of Edinburgh on 20 January 2011.

The application of the statutory derivative action in Pt 2F.1A of the Corporations Act to companies in liquidation under Ch 5 : Well oiled machine or is Pt 2F.1A in need of a tune up?

The statutory derivative action was introduced in Australia in 2000. This right of action has been debated in the literature and introduced in a number of other jurisdictions as well. However, it is by no means clear that all issues have been resolved despite its operation in Australia for over 10 years. This article considers the application of Pt 2F.1A of the Corporations Act to companies in liquidation under Ch 5. It demonstrates that the application involves consideration of not only proper statutory interpretation but also policy matters around the role and the supervision by the court of a liquidator once a company has entered liquidation.

Learning to act in uncertain environments : technical perspective

The problem of decision making in an uncertain environment arises in many diverse contexts: deciding whether to keep a hard drive spinning in a net-book; choosing which advertisement to post to a Web site visitor; choosing how many newspapers to order so as to maximize profits; or choosing a route to recommend to a driver given limited and possibly out-of-date information about traffic conditions. All are sequential decision problems, since earlier decisions affect subsequent performance; all require adaptive approaches, since they involve significant uncertainty. The key issue in effectively solving problems like these is known as the exploration/exploitation trade-off: If I am at a cross-roads, when should I go in the most advantageous direction among those that I have already explored, and when should I strike out in a new direction, in the hopes I will discover something better?

Actions for declaratory or injunctive relief by the Corporate Regulator under s 471B of the Corporations Act

This article by Ben McEniery discusses the matters a court will consider when leave to commence or proceed against a company in liquidation is sought not by a creditor seeking to prove a debt, but by the corporate regulator pursuing declaratory or injunctive relief.