The purchaser in fact did not seek finance from HSBC but a notice of termination was served was purportedly served by him on 28 April 2020, six days outside of the required period. The purchaser argued that the vendor was estopped from relying on the strict time period for obtaining finance based on correspondence between his conveyancer and the vendor’s solicitors. The purchaser was granted an extension of time to obtain finance to 20 April 2020 (approval date) and then sought, and was refused, a further extension of time to obtain finance.Ĭlause 14.2 of the contract allowed the purchaser to terminate two clear business days after the approval date if he had done everything reasonably required to obtain finance by the approval date. Handwritten notations on the contract of sale nominated HSBC as the lender.įurther handwritten notations by the real estate agent specified that an “initial” deposit of only $10,000.00 was paid with the remaining balance of the deposit ($158,000) due once finance was approved. The contract of sale to purchase a property in Albert Park, Melbourne for a purchase price of $1,680,000.00 included a clause which allowed the purchaser to apply immediately for finance and do everything reasonably required to obtain the loan by 10 April 2020. Pearl v Nannegari VSC 468 (5 August 2021, McDonald J) is a good contemporary example of a conveyance gone astray handwritten notations on the contract, a badly drafted subject to finance clause, a small initial deposit, confusion over termination rights and substantial legal costs for all parties.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |