Buyer's waiver of a special condition

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (McMurdo J) raises matters of interest for practitioners undertaking conveyancing. Woodward v Nagel [2003] QSC 100 was delivered on 11 April 2003.

Waiver in the Court of Appeal

The vagaries inherent in the operation of special conditions in land sale contracts have commonly required judicial interpretation. A further illustration is provided by the recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (Jerrard, Keane JJA and Philip McMurdo J) in Donaldson and Donaldson v Bexton and Bexton [2006] QCA 559.

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 In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn.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).

Efficiency in the Enrollment Process for the South Carolina Intellectual Disability and Related Disabilities Waiver Program

The Intellectual Disability and Related Disabilities waiver has had many changes over the years and has evolved into a robust service package that can be a significant help to individuals who wish to remain in the community or at home but would otherwise require institutional level care. Due to the limited amount of funds, it was necessary to create a waiting list for individuals who wish to participate in the ID/RD Waiver program. This project was undertaken to assess if there were practical steps that could be taken to assist in reducing the time and cost involved in the ID/RD Waiver enrollment process.

Opting only in: Contractarians, waiver of liability provisions, and the race to the bottom

This paper will test the core claim of scholars in the nexus of contracts tradition—that private ordering as a process of bargaining creates optimal rules. We do this by analyzing empirical evidence in the context of waiver of liability provisions. These provisions allow companies to eliminate monetary damages for breach of the duty of care through amendments to the articles of incorporation. With all states allowing some form of these provisions, they represent a good laboratory to examine the bargaining process between management and shareholders. The contractarian approach would suggest that shareholders negotiate with management to obtain agreements that are in their best interests. If a process of bargaining is at work as they claim, the opt-in process for waiver of liability provisions ought to generate a variety of approaches. Shareholders wanting a high degree of accountability would presumably not support a waiver of liability. In other instances, shareholders might favor them in order to attract or retain qualified managers. Still others would presumably want a mix, allowing waiver but only in specified circumstances.Our analysis reveals that the diversity predicted by a private ordering model is not borne out by the evidence with waiver of liability provisions for Fortune 100 companies. All states permit such provisions and in the Fortune 100, all but one company has them. Moreover, they are remarkably similar in effect, waiving liability to the fullest extent permitted by law. In other words, one categorical rule was merely replaced by another, dealing a significant blow to the contractarian thesis.

Waiver of School Code mandates.

P.A. 89-3 requires the State Board of Education to compile and submit requests for waivers to the General Assembly before October 1, 1995 and subsequently before each May 1 and October 1.

Waiving navigation and vessel-inspection laws. Hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, on H.R. 5111, an act authorizing the waiver of the navigation and inspection laws during the national emergency. September 17, 1941.

Mode of access: Internet.

Waiving Navigation and Inspection Laws : Hearing before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, on H. R. 5111, a bill authorizing the waiver of the navigation and inspection laws during the national emergency. July 1, 1941 ...

Schuyler O. Bland, chairman.