By Russell Cocks

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Contracts for the sale of land are known as executory contracts, as there is a time delay between entering into the contract and final performance. Consequently, the condition of the property may change between contract and settlement and the contract will usually give the purchaser the right to inspect the property as settlement approaches.

The right to inspect the property prior to settlement has been General Condition 22 of the LIV. contract of sale since 2008 but is General Condition 29 of the 2019 version of that contract and provides:

The purchaser and/or another person authorised by the purchaser may inspect the property at any reasonable time during the 7 days preceding and including the settlement day.

This General Condition was the subject of close examination in the case of Mediratta v Clark [2019] VSC 685. The purchaser failed to settle and the vendor rescinded. The purchaser claimed that the vendor was not entitled to rescind as the vendor:

• was in breach of GC 22 by refusing to permit the purchaser and/or a nominee of the purchaser to inspect the property; and
• was in breach of an implied term by refusing to permit a valuer authorised by the purchaser to inspect the property.

The contract provided for an extended settlement period of 14 months but the purchaser, who had paid a 5% deposit, had not accepted the vendor’s invitation to complete the Duties Online form, had not submitted a Transfer (paper settlement), nor a statement of adjustments. Days from settlement the purchaser requested an extension, which was denied. In those circumstances, the vendor refused to provide the agent with keys to allow the purchaser to inspect the property.

On the day that settlement was due the agent requested keys to allow a valuer to inspect the property. The vendor refused and issued a Default & Rescission Notice alleging failure to deliver the Transfer at least 10 days before settlement (GC 6) and failure to settle (GC 28). The vendor allowed the valuer to inspect within the 14-day default period but settlement did not take place prior to the expiration of the default period and the vendor regarded the contract as terminated. The purchaser requested an inspection after the expiration of the default period, but the vendor refused on the basis that the contract had been terminated and refused subsequent attempts to arrange a settlement.

The court considered the meaning of GC 22. The purchaser argued that the condition was wide enough to allow the purchaser to nominate a valuer to inspect the property for the purpose of obtaining finance. The vendor argued that the purpose of the condition was to allow the purchaser to establish whether the property was in ‘the state commensurate with the Vendor’s contractual obligation’. Derham AsJ traced the history of GC 22 and concluded that its purpose GC 22 is to allow a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to complete the contract to inspect the property for the purpose of being satisfied as to the condition of the property. It is not available to a purchaser who is not in a position to settle on the settlement day, nor for the purpose of valuation, particularly when the contract is not subject to finance.

The purchaser’s alternative argument was that, because it was a fundamental obligation of the purchaser to pay the balance due at settlement, the contract was subject to an implied condition that the vendor would co-operate with the purchaser to allow inspection of the property by a valuer. So much had been held in earlier cases but, as Derham AsJ pointed out, those contracts were subject to finance. Whilst acknowledging that a court might imply a general duty on the vendor to co-operate with the purchaser for the purpose of allowing the purchaser to satisfy the purchaser’s obligations pursuant to the contract, such an implied condition would not be ‘open-ended’. Citing a quote from Simcevski v Dixon [2017] VSC 197 His Honour confirmed that there ‘cannot be a duty to co-operate in bringing about something which a contract does not require to happen’. This contract required the purchaser to settle, it did not require the purchaser to obtain finance. Even if a duty to co-operate by making the property available for valuation were to be implied, it ‘would be limited in time and would not enable inspection at the 12th Hour’.

The purchaser’s final argument was that the vendor’s conduct was unconscientious. This was dismissed on the basis that the vendor was entitled to refuse inspection as the purchaser was in breach of GC 6 and had failed to sign the Duties Online form.

Tip Box

•GC 22 (now 29) entitles the purchaser to a pre-settlement inspection.

•If the contract is subject to finance, the vendor must co operate.

•If not subject to finance, the vendor’s duty is limited.

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Off-the-plan sales are a common feature of Victorian conveyancing. The fact that the contract cannot be settled until the plan of subdivision is registered at Land Victoria means that the settlement date is uncertain. Sunset conditions in off-the-plan contracts are meant to bring some certainty to the settlement date.

Section 9AE(2) Sale of Land Act allows a purchaser to end an off-the-plan contract if the plan of subdivision is not registered within 18 months of the date of the contract. This is consumer protection legislation designed to allow a purchaser to end a contract which may have, objectively, gone too long. A purchaser may not, 18 months after signing a contract, still wish to proceed with the purchase. However, it is important to recognise that this is a right, not an obligation so the purchaser may choose to continue with the contract, and that the statutory right is limited to the purchaser and does not extend to the vendor.

The Act recognises that the 18-month sunset period is a statutory default period and allows the parties to agree to a different period, however it has been held that the vendor cannot unilaterally alter that sunset period (Solid Investments Aust. P/L v. Clifford [2010] VSCA 59). Contracts often provide a longer sunset period, sometimes up to 60 months, and regularly give to the vendor the contractual right to end the contract, in addition to the purchaser’s statutory right, which cannot be removed.

The purchaser has very little control over the plan approval process and must adopt a largely passive role, awaiting the happy news (hopefully) from the vendor that the plan has been approved and that settlement is due 7,10, 14 or 21 days after approval, depending upon the formula adopted in the contract. On the other hand, responsibility for obtaining approval of the plan falls almost entirely upon the vendor and this, by default, means that the vendor is able to influence the timing of registration and hence the time for settlement. If only the purchaser had the right to terminate if the plan is not registered within the sunset period, then the conduct of the vendor would be less likely to be particularly significant, but the practice of granting the vendor the contractual right to terminate if the sunset date passes opens up the possibility that the vendor can affect the outcome of the contract by action, or more particularly, inaction.

By definition, there will be a delay between contract and settlement, sometimes a considerable delay. As a consequence, market forces may have had an effect on the value of the property and in a rising market, as we have enjoyed for two decades or more, this means that the property is likely to be worth more, sometimes remarkedly more, when the sunset period expires. The temptation for the vendor to allow the sunset date to pass and then terminate the contract may in such circumstances be strong as the vendor will then remain the owner of a property which is much more valuable than the contract price. The flip side is that the purchaser misses out on a property that they have long waited for.

New South Wales has recently responded to a number of examples of vendors ending contracts in these circumstances by requiring the vendor to seek consent, either from the purchaser or the Court, before ending such a contract. Victoria, on the other hand, has relied on a firmly recognised obligation of “best endeavours” on the part of the vendor to ensure that vendors are not able to unscrupulously take advantage of the unexpected delay in obtaining approval of the plan of subdivision beyond the sunset date. This obligation was firmly established in Etna v. Arif [1999] VSCA 99 where, upon it being proven that the vendor had effectively stopped trying to get the plan approved during the sunset period, the Court order specific performance of the contract notwithstanding that the sunset period had expired when the vendor finally did obtain approval.

This view was confirmed in Jessup v. Fremder [2001] VSC 100 where a purchaser was able to obtain an order for specific performance even where no particular sunset date was referred to in the contract, the Court finding that a ‘reasonable period’ was to be implied. Joseph Street P/L v. Tan [2012] VSCA 113 held that a vendor might even be required to enter into a s.173 Agreement to secure registration of the plan so that the sunset period could be satisfied, notwithstanding that construction (if applicable) had not been completed. In an unreported interlocutory judgment in April 2018 the Supreme Court imposed an injunction on a vendor who sought to terminate upon the expiration of the sunset period where the purchaser alleged that the vendor had failed to use best endeavours to obtain approval of the plan.

These decisions do not mean that a vendor will never be able to rely on the expiration of the sunset period to terminate, but they do indicate that the vendor bears a heavy burden to prove to the Court that the vendor has used best endeavours and that the sunset period has expired notwithstanding those best endeavours.

Tip Box

•purchasers have a statutory right to avoid if the sunset period expires

•vendors may have a contractual right to avoid, but must use best endeavours to achieve registration