In brief - Buyer fails in bid to avoid settlement
The Queensland District Court recently found against a buyer of three vacant land lots in Mackay, who attempted to avoid settlement on the basis of verbal discussions and claims of hardship, and ordered the buyer to settle the contracts.
Seller reinstates contracts after buyer waives finance condition benefit
The seller terminated for failure of the buyer to notify regarding finance within the required timeframe. The seller then agreed to reinstate the contracts on the basis that the buyer waived the benefit of the finance condition (which duly occurred).
Third-party buyer risk and seller's position on connecting specified services
The contracts specifically noted that:
- A substitute third-party buyer could be located by the contracted buyer to effect settlement, but whether the third-party buyer effected settlement would be at the risk of the contracted buyer.
- The seller did not promise that telephone and electricity services to the lots would be in place by settlement of the contracts.
Buyer claims contracts incorporate oral terms
The buyer attempted to argue that these oral terms were incorporated into the contracts:
- The seller was told that one of the purchase contracts was being entered into so that substitute buyers could be located in order to effect settlement.
- The seller was told that substitute buyers would only be located for one of the lots once services (including telecommunications and electricity services) were connected to the lot.
- Services would be connected to one of the lots, and a residence constructed on the lot, before settlement of the relevant purchase contract was to occur.
The buyer avoided settlement on the basis that these verbal terms had not been satisfied as at the date of settlement.
Written purchase contracts constitute whole of the agreement
The court found that the written purchase contracts constituted the whole of the agreement between the parties, noting that the verbal discussions that had apparently occurred between the buyer and the seller were not reflected in the terms of the purchase contracts that were signed.
Financial hardship claimed, but court finds settlement order not inappropriate
The buyer tried to argue that it should not be forced to complete the purchase contracts on the basis that the buyer did not have the funds, nor could it source funds, to do so. If the buyer was successful in this argument, the court could have ordered an award of damages in favour of the seller.
However, the court considered the evidence provided by the buyer of its financial affairs and declined to find that an order forcing the buyer to settle the purchase contracts would be inappropriate.
Buyer ordered to settle the purchase
The buyer was ordered to settle the purchase of the three contracts within 60 days of the court order.
This article has been published by Colin Biggers & Paisley for information and education purposes only and is a general summary of the topic(s) presented. This article is not specific legal or financial advice. Please seek your own legal or financial advice for any questions you may have. All information contained in this article is subject to change. Colin Biggers & Paisley cannot be held responsible for any liability whatsoever, or for any loss howsoever arising from any reliance upon the contents of this article.