10 Mistakes When Purchasing a Property Which Can Be Avoided - Part 2 - Making Amendments to Contract for Sale

10 Mistakes When Purchasing a Property Which Can Be Avoided

Part 2 – Making amendments to contract for sale

Sydney-based legal practice Ross Anderson Lawyers will assist you to avoid or minimise complications which arise when purchasing real estate. We helped many of our clients to avoid multiple pitfalls in the process and now ready to share our knowledge with you.

MAKING AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT FOR SALE

As you are engaged in price negotiations with the real estate agent or questioning him or her on various aspects of the property, you should ask your lawyer or conveyance to check the contract for sale which was given to you by an agent.

Many agents advertise open houses on Saturdays to attract more potential buyers.

Ross Anderson Lawyers often receive phone calls from potential clients right after open house asking to review the draft contract. Indeed, by Monday morning when the agent opens his office, the clients are already advised on provisions of contract and risks.

The thing is, the contract for sale was drafted by a lawyer or conveyance, instructed by a vendor, (hopefully) within the legislative provisions on conveyancing, however taking into account needs and wishes of their client, not you the purchaser. If, for instance, there are some issues with the property which the conveyance knows about, the contract would tend to minimise vendor’s inconvenience and risks accordingly.

Approximately in 7-8 occasions out of 10, we, having looked through the draft contract, recommended to our clients to instruct us to write to the vendor’s lawyer or conveyancer to amend certain provisions, in order to balance it to the purchaser.

Approximately in 50% of occasions, the vendor approved the amendments. Needless to say, in the event that the amendments were not approved, our clients at least were aware of their risks before making a deposit and therefore made an informed decision.

Conclusion: ask your lawyer to look through the contract after the open house.

As always, we remind that we at Ross Anderson Lawyers provide conveyancing services and the details could be obtained on our website.

Contact Ross Anderson Lawyers on our phone line at 1300 86 16 76 and email us.

Mortgage Broker “In Advance Financial Management”  will assist to obtain a home loan best suited to your needs. Call Boris Glushankov on 0411 835 071 and mention this post to get a best deal on your mortgage.

10 Mistakes When Purchasing a Property Which Can Be Avoided


Part 1 – Negotiations with real estate agents


Sydney-based legal practice Ross Anderson Lawyers will assist you to avoid or minimise complications which arise when purchasing real estate. We helped many of our clients to avoid multiple pitfalls in the process and now ready to share our knowledge with you.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH AN AGENT


With all due respect to real estate selling agents who deal with tens of potential purchasers, having no or almost no experience in purchasing property...purchasers are reminded of a Latin phrase “Caveat Emptor” which means “Buyer Beware”.

In your negotiations with an agent it always recommended to ask questions about various aspects of the property you are targeting and also seek an opinion of your lawyer or conveyance if the answers the agent gave did not satisfy you.


The thing is, from our experience, when reviewing draft contract for sale given to our clients by agents we most invariably found there a clause which reads approximately the following:


“The purchaser agrees that the only representations about the property are those contained in this contract”.



Conclusion: contact your lawyer early, when making enquiries with a real estate agent


As always, we remind that we at Ross Anderson Lawyers provide conveyancing services and the details could be obtained on our website.


Contact Ross Anderson Lawyers on our phone number 1300 86 16 76 and email us.


Mortgage Broker “In Advance Financial Management” will assist to obtain a home loan best suited to your needs. Call Boris Glushankov on 0411 835 071 and mention this post to get a best deal on your mortgage.

“Workplace” clarified by sexual harassment case

Industrial relations

  “Workplace” clarified by sexual harassment case

 In a recent decision, the Federal Court held that the term “a workplace” is broad and may include a range of venues and locations, depending upon the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of workplace participants.

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia is a reminder to employees and employers of the need to keep professional and personal relationships separate. In E. v V. (No. 3) [2013] FCA 1311, an employee was awarded $476,163 for sexual harassment by a fellow worker, making it one of the largest court-ordered sexual harassment awards.

The case also provides clarification on the meaning of “workplace” in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act), giving the term a potentially broad definition.

Justice Blomberg's judgment contains detailed record of events, beginning at 97 and discussion of damages at 597:

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca1311#_Ref374004070

“The article is published with permission of Law Society of New South Wales. Copyright (c) Law Society Of New South Wales – Client Newsletter, 2, 2014.”

Contact Solicitor Andre Petrov at Ross Anderson Lawyers if you require assistance with a work-related issue. Ross Anderson Lawyers is a Sydney-based general legal practice.

Please feel free to check our website http://www.rossandersonlawyers.com.au/ for details or visit us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rossandersonlawyers?ref=hl and click Like or Follow.

Overseas posting not a right

MULTINATIONALS’ OBLIGATION TO REDEPLOY

"A Fair Work Commission decision sheds light on the obligation of multinational companies to consider overseas employment for employees affected by redundancy.

The commission found the failure of a multinational company to redeploy an employee who was made redundant into an overseas position was not unfair.

The company, part of a multinational employer group, was found to have complied with its obligation to consider reasonable redeployment options, even though it declined to place an employee in an available position overseas when it made employees in its Brisbane office redundant.

The commission found that only after considering basic questions about a company’s structure, such as whether it has a formal overseas relocations policy and central management control over the relevant overseas office, need the task of assessing an employee’s skills, experience and qualifications against available positions be undertaken.

At any given time there may be a number of vacancies in a firm’s overseas offices. This decision establishes that it will only be necessary to consider international options for redeployment in certain circumstances. A number of other factors which the commission said need to be considered include the costs of relocating an employee from one country to another and training to fit relevant job requirements or gain necessary language skills."

“The article is published with permission of Law Society of New South Wales. Copyright (c) Law Society Of New South Wales – Client Newsletter, 1, 2014.”

Contact Principal Solicitor Andre Petrov at Systema Lex  if you require assistance with a work-related issue. Systema Lex is a Sydney-based general legal practice. Please feel free to check our website http://www.systemalex.com.au for details.

ACCC wins by forfeit in the first unfair contract terms case

ACCC wins by forfeit in the first unfair contract terms case

"Unfair terms and conditions will not be tolerated under the consumer watchdog’s unfair contract term rules.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has chalked up its first win on a case solely arising from the unfair contracts terms rules, with internet service provider ByteCard quickly capitulating and consenting to declarations that its terms and conditions (T&Cs) were unfair.

The rules target industries with a reputation for locking customers in to dodgy contracts, like mobile service providers, airlines and gyms. They caused a stir when they were introduced, threatening to be a serious weapon for consumers and an equally serious headache for businesses. Marred with vague terms like ‘fairness’ and ‘legitimate interests’, it’s sometimes a challenge to assess whether contracts are compliant.

Unfairness in ByteCard’s T&Cs arose because they:

• allowed ByteCard to vary prices without notice, and without giving consumers the opportunity to negotiate or the right to terminate;
• included an indemnity from its customers for, well, anything. It wasn’t even limited to losses arising from the customer’s actions; and
• permitted ByteCard to terminate any account at any time without cause or reason.

For ByteCard, the case cost $10,000 towards the ACCC’s legals, the cost of its own legals, and, most importantly, the damage to its reputation. It could also face damages claims from customers who were adversely affected by the unfair terms.

The kinds of clauses targeted in the case aren’t peculiar to internet service providers. The common thread to the terms in question are that they are one-sided, wide reaching, vague or are internally inconsistent.

It’s fair to assume that these kinds of clauses will remain of most concern to the ACCC.

In short, the ACCC is done with friendly approaches. Enforcement of the unfair contract terms rules is now a priority."

“The article is published with permission of Law Society of New South Wales. Copyright (c) Law Society Of New South Wales – Client Newsletter, 4, 2013.”

Contact Principal Solicitor Andre Petrov at Systema Lex  if you require assistance with a consumer contract issue. 

Systema Lex is a Sydney-based general legal practice. Please feel free to check our website http://www.systemalex.com.au for details.

No land tax for living in a garage...this time

Exemption from land tax

 Deciding on a principal place of residence

"In a recent case, a parcel of land was found to be exempt from land tax where the land owner was living in a garage he had built on the land. The law exempts land that is a “principal place of residence” from land tax.

The person had bought land three doors away from his mother and decided to build a new residence on it. First though, he built a garage which he claimed to live in as his principal place of residence. 

The Commissioner of State Revenue argued that it was not, primarily because he felt the land owner did not really live in the garage which had been built on it. The Commissioner argued that the architectural design and physical character of a garage was inappropriate for residential purposes and that a mere sleeping place was not “residential” in the relevant sense.

The Tax Office has standard procedures in seeking to show a parcel of land is not a person’s principal place of residence, invariably looking at tax returns, electricity bills, driver’s licence and the like, in order to match up the addresses on those returns, bills and licence with the address of the claimed principal place of residence.

In the case, the tribunal decided that the land was not used for anything other than the development of the new house and as the person’s residence"

“The article is published with permission of Law Society of New South Wales. Copyright (c) Law Society Of New South Wales – Client Newsletter, 3, 2013.”

Contact Andre Petrov at Systema Lex if you require assistance with estate planning, construction or conveyancing issue. Systema Lex is a Sydney-based general legal practice. Please check our website at http://www.systemalex.com.au for details.

Change in job duties and responsibilities a breach of employment contract ?

"Employers should be aware that varying an employee’s duties and responsibilities may have the effect of repudiating the employment contract, particularly if it materially impacts on the employee’s status within the organisation or industry.

In a recent decision, a judge found that a company’s executive chairman, who had hired an executive, in effect, in the same position as an existing executive, had repudiated the latter’s employment contract.

Apart from identifying the title of his position, the latter’s employment contract provided no specific detail about his role within the firm. The judge noted that repudiation may refer to conduct which “evinces an unwillingness or an inability to render substantial performance of the contract”.

The well-recognised test for repudiation is whether, objectively, the conduct of one party is such as to convey to a reasonable person, in the situation of the other party, renunciation either of the contract as a whole or of a fundamental obligation under it.

There are circumstances where a considerable change in the nature of an employee’s duties may not amount to a repudiation. The circumstances of a particular case may permit a degree of flexibility in approach."

“The article is published with permission of Law Society of New South Wales. Copyright (c) Law Society Of New South Wales – Client Newsletter, 3, 2013.”

Contact Andre Petrov at Systema Lex if you require assistance with a job-related issue.  Systema Lex is a Sydney-based legal practice. Please see our website at http://www.systemalex.com.au for details.