QLD No Building Inspection from Buyer - Contract Still Valid?

[Oneman]

With reference to a House Sale Contract:

If a buyer does not have a Building Inspection Company carry out a building inspection on the property, subject of the sale, does the contract still continue as normal once the inspection date has passed? Can either party to the contract opt out of the contract at this stage without penalty?

Thanks

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

This only applies to the standard REIQ contract - which is mostly used anyway.

- The buyer must take all reasonable steps to obtain the building and pest reports from a person licensed to carry out the inspections by the QBCC.

- One of four things happens when you hit the inspection date: you approve it or waive the condition, you terminate the contract, you seek an extension of the time to comply with the condition, or you do nothing. If you do nothing, the seller can terminate at any time prior to the buyer approving/waiving it. For the last option, this effectively creates a situation where either party can terminate.

- Either party validly terminating the contract because of this condition suffers no penalty.

 

[Oneman]

Thanks Rob. Seems to me that a contract is just a waste of time. I thought the 5 day cooling off period was the last back door for the buyer, but it seems that he has exit points throughout the contract. A simple hand shake would be a lot easier. Maybe I'm just missing something.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

No, it’s standard and has been for a long time. Unfortunately, it has been watered down significantly in terms of building and pest inspection. It used to be the case that the buyer could only terminate for structural defects. Now they can pull the pin for anything they’re not happy with.

The most common use, when it’s not an obvious case that the structure is about to fall down, is for the report outcomes to be used as a bargaining chip to decrease the price. The buyer will provide the report with a list of repairs needed. Then they’ll say you can either fix them, or they’ll attend to it after settlement if you drop the purchase price by $x thousand.

I’ve even seen some buyers try to use common property defects in the same way.

 

[Oneman]

Thanks Rob. Just a personal opinion and certainly not aimed at anyone in particular, but I think that some in the legal profession keep looking for loopholes and opportunities for clients to bend and twist the law, thereby forcing Judges to make decisions that ultimately weaken our system to the benefit of themselves and their clients with little thought to the future of society. I really don't think it is just, democratic or practical.

The 'Dual Citizenship' debacle is a perfect example. It's just become an opportunity for some to bleed millions from taxpayer funds that could be spent on the health and welfare of those who provided those funds in the first place, the Taxpayers. Sorry Rob. Nothing personal at all as there are many who are not money focused, just got carried away when I saw an opportunity to stand on a soap-box and a chance to vent some of my frustration with our system.

Cheers.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

No offence taken. You don't get very far in law unless you develop a thick skin.

Bear in mind, and this goes for all areas of law, that lawyers are required by law to represent the best interests of their clients - subject to their overarching first duty to the Courts. If something is available under the law, lawyers are duty bound to advise their clients about it. While we can, and do, provide discreet advice about the morality of taking such a course of action it is ultimately the client who makes the decision. So long as it is not illegal, we are required to act on those instructions.

 

[Oneman]

Hi Rob,
I realise that everything you're saying is true. I just wonder sometimes that lawyers, as you say 'are required by law to act in the best interests of their clients' to such an extent that one day laws will become so open to abuse that mayhem will reign supreme because there'll be a loophole for almost any criminal behaviour and maybe ultimately in the far distant future, the result will be anarchy. So, as a lawyer, if a client, asked advice on a immoral course of action, but not an illegal one and a lawyer is required to act on those instructions, would there be a way out for the lawyer if he realised that he did indeed have a conscience? Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

Yes. The lawyer can refuse to act on behalf of the client - so long as doing so does not place the client in the way of any harm (physical, financial or otherwise). There are specific circumstances where this can cause problems - such as if a client confesses guilt to their lawyer in criminal proceedings. The lawyer can then only represent the client if they are pleading guilty - they cannot act for them if they wish to plead not guilty. However, they cannot tip anyone off to the confession, so it can become a difficult proposition for the lawyer to extricate themselves if this occurs right before trial (for example).

 

[Oneman]

Thanks Rob.