pre settlement dispute - guidance sought

[Gentlem8n]

Dear Forum,

Am seeking a little guidance here. i am nearing settlement on a perth IP and one of the conditions precedent was for rising damp issues to be fixed prior to completion. However, the vendor has only fixed the internal pipes that has caused water to seep through the walls and damaged the walls in the rooms (stains and plaster damage).

The agent is claiming that the vendors’ obligations has been fulfilled as per the contract. I don’t think this is the case as how can damage be limited only to the cause and not the effect? This is clearly not the intent of the clause that we entered into as we wanted all repairs (both internal and external) to be done at the vendor’s expense.

Do we have a legal provision to rely upon? I feel that we may have been misled in the deliberate wording or that the agent has not communicated the vendor’s obligations correctly and is now trying to get out of it. The agent has made claims about being unable to draw the line in terms of external repairs which we think is nonsensical as we certainly don’t need to have the entire wall painted or fixed but at the very least, painting and plastering to be done to the damaged sections.

How do I approach this dispute with the agent?

Thanks

 

[alexlee]

Why do you care what the agent thinks? Tell your solicitor to communicate with the vendor's solicitor.

Take it as a lesson. Next time, when you write a clause like that specify exactly what you want fixed.

 

[Propertunity]

This is clearly not the intent of the clause that we entered into as we wanted all repairs (both internal and external) to be done at the vendor’s expense.

Who wrote the clause into the contract? The selling agent, you or your solicitor?

 

[Jake Milne]

Without the contract to read it's hard to say - as aforementioned your conveyancer needs to request that the vendor fulfills his/her intended duties whilst explaining to you what your position is if they're not met.

 

[westminster]

It really does depend on what the wording was used.

It is always better to be overly explicit to reduce any issues.

 

[Terry_w]

Dear Forum,

Am seeking a little guidance here. i am nearing settlement on a perth IP and one of the conditions precedent was for rising damp issues to be fixed prior to completion. However, the vendor has only fixed the internal pipes that has caused water to seep through the walls and damaged the walls in the rooms (stains and plaster damage).

The agent is claiming that the vendors’ obligations has been fulfilled as per the contract. I don’t think this is the case as how can damage be limited only to the cause and not the effect? This is clearly not the intent of the clause that we entered into as we wanted all repairs (both internal and external) to be done at the vendor’s expense.

Do we have a legal provision to rely upon? I feel that we may have been misled in the deliberate wording or that the agent has not communicated the vendor’s obligations correctly and is now trying to get out of it. The agent has made claims about being unable to draw the line in terms of external repairs which we think is nonsensical as we certainly don’t need to have the entire wall painted or fixed but at the very least, painting and plastering to be done to the damaged sections.

How do I approach this dispute with the agent?

Thanks

How did your solicitor define 'fix' and 'rising damp issues'. If your or the vendor's solicitor didn't draft these clauses who did?

If the drafter was a non lawyer did they engage in legal practice?

 

[Blurbman]

Agree with the others, the exact wording, and definitions will determine whether the clause has been complied with.

A better option next time would be to have simply reduced the purchase price so that you could do it yourself (knowing it has been done properly).