By Natalie Smyth
Buyers of property often rely on Finance clauses to give them a way out of a contract to purchase a house they really can’t afford. But for the unwary they can be nothing more than a legal minefield entangling the parties in protracted litigation.
A recent decision in the District Court of Queensland considered, inter alia, whether a conveyancing contract for the purchase of residential property in Queensland was subject to finance, and whether the Buyer could rely on the finance condition to terminate the Contract.
Whilst the decision was inconclusive (as the matter is still ongoing), it serves as good reminder for purchasers of residential property to obtain independent legal advice prior to entering into a Contract for sale.
Relevant Facts of Mewing v Duncan  QDC 52
- The parties entered into an REIQ Contract for the sale of a particular residential property on 20 November 2016.
- On the third page of the schedule to the Contract in the finance section of the reference schedule after the heading “finance amount” were the words “Sufficient to complete”, and after the heading “financer” were the words “Buyer’s choice.”
- There was no date inserted after the heading “finance date.”
The Fourteenth Edition of the REIQ Contract for the sale of Houses and Residential Land contains a notation next to the finance condition in the reference schedule of the Contract as follows:- “Unless all of ‘finance amount’, ‘financier’ and ‘finance date’ are completed, this contract is not subject to finance and clause 3 does not apply.”
Clause 3.1 of the REIQ Contract provides:- “This contract is conditional upon the Buyer obtaining approval of a loan for the finance amount from the financier by the finance date on terms satisfactory to the Buyer. The Buyer must take all reasonable steps to obtain approval.”
Accordingly, as all three sections in the finance section of the reference schedule of the Contract had not been completed, prima facie, the Contract did not appear to be subject to the finance condition.
Despite the deficiencies in the Contract, did the Court decide that the Contract was subject to finance?
The Buyer argued that she had told the agent (who had prepared the Contract) that it was to be subject to finance, and that she had relied on the agent to have completed the contract in such a way as to make it subject to finance. To this, the court remarked “if the [Buyer] relied on the real estate agent to complete the contract in such a way as to render it subject to finance, the applicants may be estopped from denying that the contract was subject to finance, regardless of the written terms of the document.”
The Court further remarked that “it is at least arguable that the agent was the agent of the applicants for the purposes of making representations as to the effect of the way in which they had completed the contract form, and if such a representation were made and were relied on by the respondent, it would be binding on the applicant.”
Despite the above remarks, the Buyer had not submitted sufficient evidence to the Court to substantiate that the agent had represented to the Buyer that the Contract was subject to finance and that the Buyer relied on that representation. Noting that the Buyer in this case was self-represented, the Court adjourned the matter to allow the Buyer an opportunity to submit further evidence to substantiate her case.
We are advised that the dispute between the Buyer and Seller remains unresolved. No doubt there is a contest regarding what representations the agent is alleged to have made on behalf of the seller.
- It is important for Buyers to remember that real estate agents are appointed by the Seller and accordingly will act in the interests of their client. If an agent has made a representation to you, whether it be with respect to the property condition, or the terms of the Contract, we recommend that such representation be reflected in the Contract as a special condition or a warranty.
- In the event that a situation arises whereby a Buyer may seek to rely on a representation made by an agent, it may be difficult, in the absence of written documentation, to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate that the representation was in fact made and relied upon by the Buyer.
- Whilst it may be possible for a purchaser to rely on a representation made by an agent with respect to a particular contractual term, the best course of action is to obtain independent legal advice prior to signing the Contract to ensure that any such representations have been reflected in the Contract.
Had the purchaser in the above mentioned case engaged a solicitor to review the Contract prior to signing same, the deficiency in the contract with respect to the finance particulars could have rectified, and accordingly, the parties could have avoided the dispute as to whether the Contract was or was not subject to finance.
Separate to obtaining pre-contract advice or legal assistance throughout a conveyancing transaction, it is apparent from the facts of this case, that when parties become embroiled in litigation, they will certainly benefit from engaging the services of a solicitor to assist them with preparing evidence sufficient to establish and support their case.
If you would like to read the court’s judgement in detail – you can access the case via:- https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2018/052
Notably in this case, the words “sufficient to complete” were used to describe the “finance amount” required to complete the transaction. In our next blog (due out on Friday 8 June 2018) “When sufficient to complete is simply not enough” we examine the Court’s view on the adequacy of this frequently used phrase.
What can we do to help?
If you are considering purchasing or selling a property in Queensland, in addition to acting in the conveyance, Just Us Lawyers can provide you with pre-contract advice, review a Contract that has been prepared by a third party to ensure its accuracy, and formalise representations made by a Seller or agent into special conditions or warranties that will form part of the Contract.