What with this disclaimer?

[Stella]

When I see something like this I get very suspicious;

Disclaimer: We have not verified whether or not that the information in this advertisement is accurate and we do not have any belief one way or the other of its accuracy. We do not accept any responsibility to any person(s) for its accuracy and do no more than pass on the acquired information. Every prospective interested purchaser(s) should make and rely completely upon their own pre-purchase enquiries and reports, in order to determine that the information contained is in fact accurate.

Or is it just my paranoia setting in?

I know dd should show up any nasties but why would an agent have this on their listings?

Cheers
Stella

 

[Dazz]

why would an agent have this on their listings?

cos their solicitors told them to put it on.....cos they know what your solicitor will do to them if they don't.

 

[ziggy2214]

cos their solicitors told them to put it on.....cos they know what your solicitor will do to them if they don't.

solicitors are bad for business, the loss in potential business is higher than the cost of any litigation.

At work, we've probably lost millions of $ in business we've declined or didn't get because of silly disclaimers and agreed terms and conditions

 

[Propertunity]

Disclaimer: We have not verified whether or not that the information in this advertisement is accurate and we do not have any belief one way or the other of its accuracy. We do not accept any responsibility to any person(s) for its accuracy and do no more than pass on the acquired information. Every prospective interested purchaser(s) should make and rely completely upon their own pre-purchase enquiries and reports, in order to determine that the information contained is in fact accurate.

Hi Stella,

RE agents have been sued in the past for putting information on flyers and brochures etc that was provided to them by their vendor that was ultimately shown to be incorrect but was relied upon by the purchaser.

TPFKAD is right - a disclaimer goes someway to mitigating the REA's exposure to a purchaser's future law suit.

 

[Dazz]

Every prospective interested purchaser(s) should make and rely completely upon their own pre-purchase enquiries and reports

Of course, if every purchaser did this, there would no need for REA's, and little need for solicitors.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of property purchasers like very much to be spoon fed, especially by the representative for the opposing party to the contract. Why that is so is beyond me.

Once you learn and are comfortable to completely stand on your own two feet, you have little need for disclaimers and the great desire to litigate against other parties for your own inadequacies.

 

[pricey]

But do dislcaimers like this stand up against the trade practices act?

 

[boomtown]

edit ...never mind

 

[Propertunity]

But do dislcaimers like this stand up against the trade practices act?

The answer is maybe - it all depends.

The various legal cases make VERY interesting reading.

Look at the last page (page 4) of this http://www.schweizer.com.au/newsletters/In touch with the law 2005_2 .pdf

 

[Alabex]

this is a very popular disclaimer amongst real estate agents because it was held up in court and then widely promoted through real estate institute to agents. It is the disclaimer our agency uses and I have always thought it was riddiculous... but if it stops us losing a lot of money in litigation welll i am not complaining.

I was think it would be funny to put it into practice literally.. a buyer asks.. "is it a two bedroom unit" and i respond " i dont know, you need to make your own enquiries".... "how many quare meters is it".. hand them a tape measure... "what street is this" .. " i dont know"

 

[buzzlightyear]

"how many quare meters is it".. hand them a tape measure... "what street is this" .. " i dont know"

I have never known any REA to know the size (square metres) of a particular property, even the smaller flat/apartments/studio, which would have an impact on financing options.

I have heard many times, "oh about 50 sqm"! I think they need the tape measure

 

[Bargain Hunter]

The answer is maybe - it all depends.

The various legal cases make VERY interesting reading.

Look at the last page (page 4) of this http://www.schweizer.com.au/newsletters/In touch with the law 2005_2 .pdf

It's interesting that by distancing themselves from the information on the brochure that the REA was released from any responsibility. One would think that although the purchaser was unable to make a claim against the REA that the judge would have at least declared the sale void and ordered a return of all monies without prejudice. After all the misleading information was supplied by the vendor.

Regards

Andrew

 

[Stella]

I suppose if a r/e puts the disclaimer on all of their properties it really is up to the purchasers dd. Paranoia aside - seeing that on every listing for this one agent gives me the impression the agent is either lazy, is covering their butt or just doesnt care & will put whatever they want on the listing....or none of the above.

Easier to ignore the disclaimer & do thorough dd or go thru another agent I guess.

Cheers
Stella

 

[pricey]

So if the agent wasn't liable, were the purchasers able to sue the vendor?

Also, would they have been able to retain their deposit and have the contract of sale made void due to misrepresentation?

If the agent had verbally told them the same info as on the brochure, or if the purchaser had other flyers from the agent without a disclaimer would this have made the outcome different?

The answer is maybe - it all depends.

The various legal cases make VERY interesting reading.

Look at the last page (page 4) of this http://www.schweizer.com.au/newsletters/In touch with the law 2005_2 .pdf

 

[Propertunity]

So if the agent wasn't liable, were the purchasers able to sue the vendor?

Here's the full story with all the details which should answer your Q's.

http://www.hopgoodganim.com.au/_upload/20081021112637951.pdf

 

[attrill]

It annoys me when an agent uses a disclaimer to justify making completly untrue statements.

Recently I went down to a home open. The flyer said "3 unit site and planning approvals already in place" I got there to find an old house with none of the planning process for sub-division even started. I told the agent that this was misrepresentation and he said it was just a typo and would be fixed up. A month later the same property is in the window and still being advertised in exactly the same way.

Don't even get me started on an agent's interpretation of "sea views" (take your telescope) or "only 10 minutes from the city centre" (take your motorcycle and risk multiple speeding fines whilst doing the drive at 3am)

 

[tubs]

Reminds me of a place we purchased where the ACTUAL room sizes were significantly smaller than those on the plan on the brochure. The dining room, in particular was at least 1m short in both directions compared to what the plan said.

Next time I look at a place from this particular agent I'll be going with tape measure handy.

 

[pricey]

so if this goes to court and it is a clear misrepresentation, who does the judge usually side with if the agent or the vendor if he has been conned?

 

[Propertunity]

so if this goes to court and it is a clear misrepresentation, who does the judge usually side with if the agent or the vendor if he has been conned?

Well reading this particular case, even the judges (3 of them) could not agree.
I think it went down to 2 V 1.

 

[fald1]

so if this goes to court and it is a clear misrepresentation, who does the judge usually side with if the agent or the vendor if he has been conned?

Sorry, if -what- goes to court? (can't see specific case you are talking about)

If you are speaking generally, your outcome can be the result of a judge's bad haircut.

Also, it depends on what the situation is.

The case mentioned above is about a brochure which had a techinical diagram on it that their builder accepted and said the pool could therefore be moved. It seeems clear cut deception by the vendors.

If it was something less tech. that the purchasers themselves could easily do DD on, like room numbers and sizes, legal heights underneath or estimated rent return, then I think the judge may be less lenient.

It all depends.

 

[pricey]

But isn't this what happened?

One would think that although the purchaser was unable to make a claim against the REA that the judge would have at least declared the sale void and ordered a return of all monies without prejudice. After all the misleading information was supplied by the vendor.

Regards

Andrew