Help: To terminate a contract base on building inspection report.

[Money]

Hi All,
Has anyone terminated a contract based on building inspection clause.

I'm VIC, and the building clause stats it has to be a major structural defect.

So far I only paid $1500 to sign the contract for the offer to purchase the property. I have not paid the 10% deposit yet.

The bricks all around the base of the house is spalling (the bricks surface is chipping off and some is slowly exposing the core.)
My inspector inform me there should be some issue with the drainage system, else why is all the bricks around the base of the house is all spalling.

The contract is not subject to finance therefore I can't get away using this clause.

Of course the bloody agent is playing hardball with me since there dearly wants the sale to go through to get their commission.
The agents were very bad! They basically gave me all the verbal assurances that the vendor will fix everythign etc. so that I don't terminate the contract based on the cooling off period and now the period has lapse.


Question 1:
Is bricks spalling all around the base of the brickwork consider as major structural defect?

Question 2:
If I want to contest this matter. How do I go about it , Will I end up in tribunal/court etc. How much it will cost me in the long run to contest etc.
What happens if this matter drag on at the tribunal for the next 3 mths.
And then 3 mths later I'm forced to purchase the house??

I know I can get some clarification from the solictor but just like people experiences from this forum.

Thanks.

 

[Ausprop]

if i were the vendor i couldn't be btohered pursuing you through the courts. if you want out, just terminate the contract on the grounds that you see a major structural defect and leave it at that. Dont involve the REA, they work for the vendor. this is between solicitors now.

 

[Money]

if i were the vendor i couldn't be btohered pursuing you through the courts. if you want out, just terminate the contract on the grounds that you see a major structural defect and leave it at that. Dont involve the REA, they work for the vendor. this is between solicitors now.

Thanks, Anyone have any other comments.

 

[rossdc]

I did just last December. Dont involve the RE and terminate the contract based on major structural defect. It was the end of story.

 

[Money]

I did just last December. Dont involve the RE and terminate the contract based on major structural defect. It was the end of story.

Was your situation dealing with real non-debatable major structural defect or was it debatable?

Thanks

 

[Rolf Latham]

Hiya Money

There is nothing to debate ..............................if the vendor has signed subject to satisfactory pest and build clause ................thats subject to your satisfactiom, not theirs.

ta
rolf

 

[Money]

Hiya Money

There is nothing to debate ..............................if the vendor has signed subject to satisfactory pest and build clause ................thats subject to your satisfactiom, not theirs.

ta
rolf

Iin victoria, the subject to building inspection clause has a fine print of major structure defect only.

Which I think of it now, I should have said I will only sign the contract if its subject to building inspection satisfaction. Not the fine prints there included into the contract.

 

[Witzl]

you should still be able to withdraw - have a chat with your solicitor.

We recently withdrew from a purchase because of structural defects - we just contacted our solicitor, and advised them that there was structural defects and we do not wish to proceed. He then contacted vendors solicitor, and the sale was off.

Lesson for next time - also add the clause to the sale contract "subject to partner's approval".
Your partner could be your cat, your mum, etc, the main point is that it gives you another uncontestable "get-out clause".
Remember, the contract of sale is a contract between you and the vendor - you can add pretty much whatever you like to it, and dont let an REA bully you about it. If they wont accept, you wont buy.


NOTE - this is from my experience only, with dealing in NSW, so i cannot be 100% sure that this is also applicable in VIC. HOwever, Michael Yardney suggests the same thing in his book, so i cant see why its not applicable in VIC.

 

[Money]

Thanks All,

I made a lot of mistakes by wasting my time with the REA.

Anyway lesson learned. Any termination of contract intention should be going through my conveyancer.
I was too naive and let the REA giving assurances and vendor going to give me extension etc. and at the end of the day they turn it into , NO we did not say this etc.

At 1st the REA said I can't terminate at all since the cooling off period and building inspection clause has expired. LOL! eventhough I have sent and informed the agents 2 letters (attached to emails) of intention to terminate.

ANyway they came to their senses. Or maybe they were just playing me to see whether I will go ahead and purchase the property.

If I were to go through my conveyancer directly from the very start I wouldn't have to waste all the time with the REA arguing about what were the facts. LOL!

Anyway I did terminate the contract based on cooling off period , therefore losing around $1318.
I decided not to terminate based on major structural defect. Since the REA says his vendor will challenge it etc. in the courts and even sue my building inspector. I wonder it was really the vendor words or just the REA.

My 1st property purchase was so smooth therefore I did NOT learn anything from that experience. LOL!

I really feel like a fool wasting my energy talking with the REA so many times to resolve this issue.
Very upset!!

 

[Perp]

I'm with rossdc and Ausprop.

Out of interest, do you have a solicitor representing you? If not, I'd be inclined to get one and have them send the termination notice. It gives the appearance that you've sought legal advice and are confident that you're on strong legal footing cancelling for this reason.

And as another aside: is the "major structural defects" clause a feature of "standard" contracts in your state, or did you naively agree to this? (It's this that makes me wonder if you have a solicitor.)

[addendum: I had this post waiting to hit submit for over 12 hours, which is why it appears out of sequence. I see you've now terminated, and that the "major structural defects" is a standard clause in Victoria. Oh well, lesson learned!]