June 2018

Unlike other Jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, those familiar with conveyancing understand that in Brisbane residential property contracts “time is of the essence”.

But what does that actually mean?  

This was considered by the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay.

The contract involved an expensive Gold Coast property. The contract was due and the parties had nominated 3pm as the time for settlement. The Buyer’s solicitors arrived and were informed that the release of mortgage would not be available for another 15 minutes. The Buyer declined to wait any more than five minutes and left. The Seller’s solicitor contacted the Buyer’s solicitors shortly thereafter and requested that the Buyer return stating that the Sellers had reserved their rights to settle any time up to 5pm. The Buyer’s solicitor did not agree to re-attend settlement nor did the Buyer attempt to make any other arrangements for settlement.

The Seller’s solicitor then sent a fax to the Buyer’s solicitor at 4.36pm holding the Buyer in breach of the contract as it had not effected settlement by 5pm. This fax was sent prematurely, in that it was not 5pm, and the Buyer was not yet in breach of the contract. The Buyers argued that this facsimile was intimidation because it was sent before 5.00pm, and they were, as a result, excused from having to settle.

The court disagreed with the Buyers. The court held that rather the Buyer’s refusal to return on the settlement date excused the Sellers from performing their obligations under the contract and the Buyer was in breach of the contract in failing to settle because time was of the essence.  As a consequence, the Sellers were fully entitled to terminate the contract after 5.00pm for the Buyer’s failure to comply with the contract.

The lesson to be learnt by the parties to residential conveyancing contracts is that it is always important to look at the terms of the contract before taking rash action – no matter how inconvenient the practices of the other party may be. Most standard contracts for the sale of residential property in Queensland provide that settlement must take place up to 5.00pm on the settlement day. Failure to make yourself available will entitle the other party to avoid the consequences of the contract, even if the failure is caused by the bank’s inability to get it’s act together.

If you are the Buyer, who is at fault, as a minimum you will forfeit your deposit. If you are the Seller, the Buyer can terminate without loss of the deposit and the agent will probably still be able to claim his commission from you.

It is essential that you be ready, willing and able to complete the sale at the time set out in the contract because in Queensland, as the term says, time really is of the essence!

For further information on conveyancing and how we can assist in pre-contract advice please contact our Conveyancing Team based at our Wilston office.  

For the best Conveyancing lawyers in Brisbane call/email Just Us Lawyers or complete our enquiry form for a quote today

By Natalie Smyth

Purchasers entering into a Contract for the purchase of residential or commercial property in Queensland may require the Contract to be subject to obtaining satisfactory finance. Such a provision is often an important and essential term of the Contract entitling a purchaser to terminate the Contract in the event that satisfactory finance is not obtained.

In circumstances where the finance condition is vague or uncertain as to be meaningless, it can render the clause unenforceable and purchasers may find themselves in a situation where they are legally bound to complete the Contract in the absence of obtaining finance.

In the Fourteenth Edition of the REIQ Contract for the sale of Houses and Residential Land, in order for the Contract to be subject to the finance condition, all of the “finance amount” “financier” and “finance date” sections in the reference schedule must be completed. It is common practise for real estate agents in Queensland to complete the reference schedule of the Contract, and we often seen the phrase “sufficient to complete” next to the “finance amount” heading, as opposed to an exact dollar figure.

Failure to insert an exact dollar figure could be problematic in circumstances where a purchaser also requires finance to cover:-

1. any potential transfer duty imposed on the transfer of property;
2. title registration fees; and
3. legal fees.

It could be argued that a purchaser who obtains finance for the balance purchase price has obtained an amount that is “sufficient to complete” the purchase. The fact that a purchaser, who requires finance to pay a stamp duty liability or legal fees, has only been able to secure finance for the balance purchase price, may find themselves unable to rely on the finance condition, as technically, those liabilities are extraneous to completion of the Contract.

What is the Court’s view?

In the High Court case of Meehan V Jones & Ors (1982), a purchaser sought specific performance of a contract of sale expressed to be executed subject to “the Purchaser or his nominee receiving approval for finance on satisfactory terms and conditions in an amount sufficient to complete the purchase.”

Facts of Meehan v Jones

The purchaser had obtained finance and had notified the Seller of his intention to proceed with the Contract, however, in the interim the Seller had found another purchaser and did not wish to proceed with the first Contract. Accordingly, the Seller sought to resist the claim for specific performance on the grounds that:-

1. the finance clause was uncertain and therefore rendered the contract void; and
2. That the clause, if certain, reserved to the purchaser a discretion or option to elect to carry out the contract, which rendered the contract illusory.

The Court’s decision

The High Court recognised that the finance clause in the Contract was potentially ambiguous in the sense that it failed to define the extent of the purchaser’s obligations with respect to the search for finance and the criteria to be used in the determination of whether such finance was in fact satisfactory, however, ultimately decided that the purchaser was entitled to specific performance of the Contract.

The Court held that the contract was not void for uncertainty because:

1. “The courts should be astute to adopt a construction which would preserve the validity of the contract” (per Mason and Wilson JJ); and
2. “It was only if the court was unable to put any definite meaning on the contract that it could be said to be uncertain” (per Gibbs CJ and Murphy J).

The Court was unanimous in holding that “subject to finance” clauses will not generally result in a contract for sale being held void for uncertainty, and the fact that a clause might contain some ambiguity will not preclude a court from ascertaining the intention of the parties with respect to the clause in question.

Further in the case of Clarke v Relstar Pty Ltd (1982), a contract expressed to be subject to the purchaser’s obtaining finance by a given date on terms wholly satisfactory to the purchaser to enable him to complete the transaction was held to be not void for uncertainty.

In the case of York Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (Australasia) Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth , Williams J commented, “If the court comes to the conclusion that parties intended to make a contract, it will if possible give effect to their intention no matter what difficulties of construction arise.”

Does this also apply to commercial contracts?  

Note 7 of the REIQ Contract for the purchase of commercial land and buildings provides: “the dollar amount of the loan being sought must be inserted in item U. Do not insert the words ‘sufficient to complete this purchase ‘or words of a similar effect.”  We understand the reason for this notation, is to avoid the situation described above, whereby a purchase may require an amount of finance that is above that required to complete the Contract.

As far as we are aware there is yet to be decision of  a court determinative of this issue..

Conclusion:-

1. The courts will attempt to give proper effect to commercial transactions;
2. If the courts can ascertain the intention of the parties with respect to the clause, and deduce a meaning from the clause, it will likely not be void for uncertainty;
3. “subject to finance” clauses will not generally result in a contract for sale being held void for uncertainty; and
4. the fact that a clause might contain some ambiguity will not preclude a court from ascertaining the intention of the parties with respect to the clause in question.

Despite Chief Justice Gibbs’ comment in Meehan v Jones with respect to “subject to finance” clauses, that their “natural effect is to leave it to the purchaser to determine whether or not the available finance is suitable to his needs,” in circumstances where a purchaser obtains finance for the balance purchase price, but requires a finance amount that is above that required to complete the contract (i.e for a stamp duty liability), in the absence of obtaining additional finance, the purchaser may still be bound to complete the Contract.  Accordingly, the phrase “sufficient to complete” is potentially ambiguous, and we therefore recommend that purchasers insert a specific dollar amount  (or a figure expressed as a percentage of the purchase price) next to the “finance amount” heading in the reference schedule that includes not only the balance purchase price, but also stamp duty costs, legal and title registration fees.

We recommend that you seek pre-contract advice from our team at Just Us Lawyers prior to signing any Contract for the Sale and Purchase of residential or commercial property in Queensland.

Just Us Lawyers – for the best Conveyancing lawyers in Brisbane call/email Just Us Lawyers or complete our enquiry form for a quote today