incorrect section32/ Newbie

[willair]

Thanks for that.

We are gonna try meeting with the vendor and estate agent face to face to try and resolve the matter i hope it can be resolved.

I think if the vendor is not willing to discuss this we will postpone settlement and seek legal advise.

thanks

What a mess you would want to sit down and have a good think about all this,how bad do you want the property?,is it worth all the problems you now face,the R-E agent will not care less,the legal people will be happy,
the vendors would hope you just walk away and find another property..
The re agent is only interested in one item his or her comm,the legal people are only interested in their slice of the pie,every time i get legal advice they send me a bill for $500.00 and that's only 3 phone calls..
good luck willair..imho..

 

[weg]

I would have thought an incorrect Section 32 would NOT have been the fault of the vendor. If this is the case then you would not expect them to drop the price due to someone elses error.

You have grounds by the look of things to get out of the contract as this apartment is obviously not suitable and if you think you have been financially inconvenienced then you could probably pursue compensation from those that made the stuff up.

If so then it could very well become a costly exercise for very little if any compensation especially if you could not prove that it was intentional and that you experienced a financial loss in this time.

Personally I don't think the vendor should be responsible for paying any gas connection.

 

[Propertunity]

I would have thought an incorrect Section 32 would NOT have been the fault of the vendor.

Why not? The only person who is required to sign the Section 32 is the vendor. So it will be either the vendor or his/her agent - i.e. conveyancer or REA.

If so then it could very well become a costly exercise for very little if any compensation especially if you could not prove that it was intentional and that you experienced a financial loss in this time.

You don't have to prove "that is was intentional" at law for an offence to have been committed. It would be fairly easy for the purchaser to demonstrate "financial loss" in this case as the quote for a gas connection was up to $10K".

The Sec 32 is a legal document......read some case studies here of how they can go wrong:
http://www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/news/conveyancing_165_section_32.asp

 

[Perp]

I would have thought an incorrect Section 32 would NOT have been the fault of the vendor. If this is the case then you would not expect them to drop the price due to someone elses error.

Sorry weg, but I think you're on the wrong track! As Propertunity says, both the RE agent and the conveyancer are acting as the vendor's agent. If they've been negligent, the vendor may then be able to sue them, but the vendor is absolutely responsible to the purchaser for the accuracy of the Section 32.

So if this is due to the conveyancer's stuff-up, the purchaser has legal redress against the vendor, and then the vendor then has a legal claim against the conveyancer for the same amount (possibly plus costs).

Also concur with Propertunity that intentionality has nothing to do with it. The vendor absolutely has to pay for gas to be connected; they've signed a contract binding them to sell a property with gas connected.

 

[Situation]

thanks for the reply.


It is all sorted the vendor will get the full amount. We will be compensated by the vendors conyenancer.

They said they will pay for it to get installed but we had to settle first then they will give us money to install it. I said no cause it would have to go through body corp and who know if they will approve it.

We only pushed for the gas cause it is so much better for heating and cooking.

But in the end we are happy with the resolution.

 

[weg]

Why not? The only person who is required to sign the Section 32 is the vendor. So it will be either the vendor or his/her agent - i.e. conveyancer or REA.

Even though the vendor has signed the document the court may view this as non deliberate (and the vendor found not guilty of an offence) especially as the information is compiled by others and simply find the contract null and void.

I think it is reasonable to expect that alot of the correct details are not always known to a vendor unless they themselves are to do the checks. Gas may very well be connected to an apartment block that an owner is not aware of.

I am personally aware of a case where the block size was claimed to be bigger than it actually was (by a very small amount). That contract became null and void and the sale fell through. The vendor in that case did not measure his block (do people do this) nor was he prepared to drop the price as the purchaser had requested. He did seek legal advice but it did not progess to the courts.

You don't have to prove "that is was intentional" at law for an offence to have been committed. It would be fairly easy for the purchaser to demonstrate "financial loss" in this case as the quote for a gas connection was up to $10K".

Are you sure this would not have any bearing on finding whether on not a criminal offence had been committed .

I am pretty certain a court would not consider gas conection a financial loss (he hasn't actually lost 10K). It would be more the losses associated with time spent in the undertaking to purchase and any costs involved.



It has just occurred to me that we don't have many legal people on this forum (or do we?)

 

[weg]

Thanks Tracey. Posted before I read the last few posts.

I suppose it boils down to doing your own DD before signing and not putting your full trust in conveyancer and REA for that matter.

 

[Perp]

Are you sure this would not have any bearing on finding whether on not a criminal offence had been committed .

This may be the source of your confusion. Intentionality can be important in criminal deliberations, but this is a civil matter regarding breach of contract.

 

[Propertunity]

I suppose it boils down to doing your own DD before signing and not putting your full trust in conveyancer and REA for that matter.

Well it seems that the Sec 32 issue has been resolved in favour of the purchaser - which is a good result for them.

 

[Perp]

It is all sorted the vendor will get the full amount. We will be compensated by the vendors conyenancer.

Congratulations, that's terrific!

I hate to sound like I'm telling you to suck eggs, but as I gather you don't have a lawyer, I hope you don't mind me asking... Do you have the conveyancers' commitment to pay for installation in writing, or have you changed the contract such that installation is a condition of settlement?

It'd just be a shame to have negotiated a resolution, and then not be able to enforce it when, for example, it costs more than the conveyancers anticipated and they want to back out.

But well done; great to hear you've negotiated a satisfactory resolution.