When "wraps" go wrong!

cu@thetop

cu@thetop

You've read the news.com.au article:

http://www.news.com.au/realestate/n...nt-by-neighbours/story-fncq3gat-1226650717330


Now read the case:
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QDC13-110.pdf

Funny part about this is that it is one of the few times I've seen a "wrap" bite the "wrapper" on the buttock cheek.

Executive summary: Plaintiffs sue crazy neighbours who were buying under a wrap agreement for trespass and nuisance damages.

Hilarity ensues.

No doubt the wrappers are already changing their paperwork. I'm wondering what the terms of the licence to use the premises under the wrap were?
 
I guess the order given by the Judge is understandable considering the plaintiffs didn't appear. I'm sure they'll decide to appear next time ;-)

Especially the vendor (Seller) under the Instament Contract as clause 8.5 (4) of the REIQ Contract states:
'the Buyer indemnifies the Seller against any expense or damages incurred by the Seller as a result of the Buyer's possession of the Property.'

And from an Instalment Contact from 2006, the Indemnity section of the Instalment Payment Schedule say, in part:
'As from the Possession Date, the Buyer indemnifies and holds harmless the Seller from and against all liability, loss, cost, damages, judgments, suits, actions or otherwise arising out of any activity on or relating to the property, or arising through the Buyer's possession of the property by the Buyer and the Buyer's Family and all invitees, licensees or other entrants upon the property.'

It would be interesting to know if the Seller used these Indemnity provisions.

Cheers, Paul
 
I do find it difficult to reconcile, how the home owner was held responsible for the actions of the occupier. Not certain if the relationship between the occupier and the owner alters the position of responsibility, ie normal residential tenancy, or the vendor financed purchase agreement. Even in a normal tenancy, I believe holding an owner responsible is a long bow to draw. Appreciate others thoughts.
 
Interesting case. I am sure it would have been different if the owner had participated in defending himself.

This is the sort of situation where having a corporate trustee comes in handy!
 
Absolutely agree with Terry. I think the judge's Order may have been very different if the the 3rd plaintiff (the Seller) had appeared at the trial and defended his position. Not turning up was pretty unbelievable.

Cheers, Paul
 
I think if the owner had known of the nuisance and allowed it to continue there may be a case but I agree if the owner showed and kicked up about it the judgment may have been confined to the problem tenants only.
The indemnity clauses would be next to worthless given that the wrapees are too povo to but the house in the first place.

I expect it is only a matter of time before the bailiff sells it off. Probably an opportunity for a forumite here.

Tenants already in place!:D
 
While not turning up may not have been the smartest thing to do, I am still having difficulty reconciling the connection to the owner. It seems obvious that the occupant was at fault, however where is the connection with the owner. Would it be different of the same, if it were a conventional landlord tenant situation? We probably don’t know if the owner was aware, and the court took the view that being aware, and not attempting to have the occupant curb their behaviour made them complicit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top