Legal gobblygook - can someone translate?

I've just had a clause sprung on me in a contract. My lawyer is unavailable tonight, so I just wanted to get a heads up before talking to them tomorrow. Does anyone know what the following means?

An executed prior stamped transfer in favour of the seller, and an executed unstamped transfer for the lot in favour of the buyer, both capable of immediate registration (after stamping of the second transfer) in the appropriate Government office free from encumbrances (other than those stated in this Contract), but subject to the conditions of the Contract, and other documents capable of allowing the buyer to become the registered owner of the land including the seller's undertaking to answer at the seller's expense any requisition which may issue from the Department of Environment and Resource Management or Office of State Revenue on any such documents.
 
At first glance seems to me like a buyer wanting to make sure that clear title can be transferred and if there's any hitches like unpaid money to the OSR or any gov dept. the seller is responsible for all expenses incurred in making sure, and provider the buyer with proof of such.
fwiw I think it's worded terribly. Just tell them to word it properly and send it back imo.
 
At first glance seems to me like a buyer wanting to make sure that clear title can be transferred and if there's any hitches like unpaid money to the OSR or any gov dept. the seller is responsible for all expenses incurred in making sure, and provider the buyer with proof of such.
fwiw I think it's worded terribly. Just tell them to word it properly and send it back imo.

Thanks for the translation. I didn't make it clear earlier, but the clause was actually put in by the vendor. I'm trying to buy this place.
 
I've noticed that the initial contract I was given had two people listed as the vendor. The latest one is only in one name. Does this sound like a plausible reason to include the clause that they did?
 
I would have said you were left holding a "flip" but more likely the remaining seller has bought the other one out but not yet registered the transfer. Your bank will need to see the earlier transfer prior to settlement. Get a copy.
 
I would have said you were left holding a "flip" but more likely the remaining seller has bought the other one out but not yet registered the transfer. Your bank will need to see the earlier transfer prior to settlement. Get a copy.

Would it be best to add a clause that the vendor is to provide the buyer a copy of the transfer within x days?
 
I would say you are definitely buying a flippers property.

The stamped transfer referred to means that the transfer from the registered owner to the flipper has already had stamp duty payed and 'stamped'. so that on settlement you will need to lodge both transfers, the original (registered) owner to flipper and then the one from the flipper to you(which you will have to pay the duty on).

You solicitor should know how to ensure all is valid.

Cheers
 
I would say you are definitely buying a flippers property.

The stamped transfer referred to means that the transfer from the registered owner to the flipper has already had stamp duty payed and 'stamped'. so that on settlement you will need to lodge both transfers, the original (registered) owner to flipper and then the one from the flipper to you(which you will have to pay the duty on).

You solicitor should know how to ensure all is valid.

The property was last sold a few years ago. The original contract I received had two names as vendors and the latest one with the added clause only had one vendor. I suspect there's been some sort of partnership that has gone awry and one has bought the other out.
 
Top