Legislative change will impact on conveyancing

One of the more significant conveyancing decisions of 2005 was MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QCA 230 (‘Gerrard’). Real estate agents, in particular, became concerned when the Court of Appeal raised grave doubts concerning the validity of a contract for the sale of residential property formed by the use of fax. As a result, the government acted quickly to introduce amendments to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCMA’). The relevant Act is the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). These amendments commenced on 1 December 2005. In the second reading speech, the Minister stated that these amendments would provide certainty for sellers of residential properties or their agents when transmitting pre-contractual documents by facsimile and other electronic means. The accuracy of this prediction must be assessed in light of the errors that may occur.

No more than a messenger?

If a real estate agent describes a property as being “a golden opportunity to invest” the expression will be readily construed as mere “puffery”. The legal landscape changes when a real estate agent describes a property as “leased” and having a “guaranteed net income”. Can an agent avoid potential liability, for an inaccurate description, by arguing that they were merely acting as a messenger to pass on information received from their vendor client? The potential liability of real estate agent “messengers” was recently considered by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Banks & Anor v Copas Newnham Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QCA 217.

Attach the correct warning statement

Practitioners will be aware that s 366 (1) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 provides that a relevant contract must have attached, as its first or top sheet, a warning statement in the approved form. A failure to attach a warning statement in the prescribed manner triggers a right of termination in the buyer. The factual circumstances in Devine Ltd v Timbs [2004] QSC 24 are indicative of the problems that may arise in the construction of this statutory provision. The application concerned put and call option agreements entered into concerning 4 lots. The agreements, in identical terms, were signed before the applicant seller had completed a proposed residential apartment building. In each case the option agreement provided that the agreement was not binding on the seller until and unless the purchaser returned to the seller, amongst other things, two copies of the warning statement under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Ac 2000 signed by the purchaser and two copies of the contract document signed by the purchaser. The seller was required to hold the contract documentation in escrow and was forbidden to sign it until and unless either option was exercised.

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).

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.

Joinder to a later unsigned document?

It is well known that a statutory requirement of formality is associated with contracts concerning land. In this regard, s 59 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) provides: No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land unless the contract upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note of the contract, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged, or by some person by the party lawfully authorised. In addition to the possibility of a formal contract, the statutory wording clearly contemplates reliance on an informal note or memorandum. To constitute a sufficient note or memorandum for the purposes of the statute, the signed note or memorandum must contain details of the parties to the contract, an adequate description of the property, the price and any other essential terms. It is also accepted that the doctrine of joinder may be invoked in circumstances where the document signed by the party to be charged contains an express or implied reference to any other document. In this way, a sufficient note or memorandum may be constituted by the joinder of a number of documents.

A superannuation fund as a buyer?

In Bennett v Stewart McMurdo J considered the operation of a contract where the buyer was described as a superannuation fund. The Bennetts signed a standard REIQ contract as buyers of the Stewarts’ house and land. However, the reference schedule to the contract document contained these words next to the word ‘buyer’: ‘Bennett Superannuation Fund’ The Bennetts wished to enforce the contract. In response, the Stewarts (the sellers) raised two issues: • As the ‘Bennett Superannuation Fund’ was a trust and not a distinct legal entity capable of making a contract, the contract did not specify who was the buyer, so that the contract was void for uncertainty; and • The contract was unenforceable as there was no sufficient note or memorandum for the purposes of s 59 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) as s 59 requires, amongst other things, an identification of the parties. McMurdo J did not accept either of these arguments and made an order for specific performance in favour of the Bennetts. Looking at each issue separately:

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).

The source of the good faith obligation in the performance and enforcement of commercial contracts

There are many issues associated with good faith that will ultimately confront the Australian High Court and a number of these have been well canvassed. However, one significant issue has attracted relatively little comment. To date, a number of Australian courts (lower in the judicial hierarchy) have been prepared to hold directly, tacitly accept or assume (without making a final determination) that good faith is implied (as a matter of law) in the performance and enforcement of a very broad class of contract, namely commercial contracts per se. This broad approach is demonstrated in decisions from the Federal Court, the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the Supreme Courts of Victoria and Western Australia and has crept into pleadings in commercial matters in Queensland

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.