Vendor and Purchaser(Q.)—Sale of land—Instalment contract—Contract of sale—Farm land—Price payable by deposit and balance on later date—Weekly amounts payable by purchaser to maintain land in condition ready to plant—Whether "instalment contract"—Instalment contract not determinable by reason of default in payment of sum of money other than deposit until expiration of period of notice—Non-compliance with notice to complete—Rescission notice—Whether determination by reason of non-payment of sum of money—Property Law Act 1974 (Q.), ss. 71(2)(b), 72(1).

Decisions

MASON C.J., BRENNAN and DAWSON JJ. This appeal raises important questions relating to the interpretation of the expression "instalment contract" in s.71(2)(b) of the Property Law Act 1974 (Q.) ("the Act") and the operation of s.72(1) of the Act.
The contract

2. By an agreement entered into on 27 October 1988 the vendors (appellants) agreed to sell and the purchaser (respondent) agreed to buy a parcel of 24.43 hectares of land in Stanley County, Capalaba Parish, Wellington Point. The contract of sale was based upon the standard form contract adopted by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and approved by the Queensland Law Society. Some standard form clauses were varied or deleted and thirteen special conditions agreed upon by the parties were annexed to and formed part of the contract. The purchase price was expressed to be $1,500,000 and a deposit of 10 per cent of this amount was required to be paid in accordance with cl.30 of the contract.

3. At the time of entry into the contract the land the subject of the sale was described as being used for rural purposes. The purchaser was a developer. As appears from the contract, the purchaser wished to subdivide the land and, to this end, the land needed to be rezoned to "Residential A". By cl.32(a) it was provided that, if such rezoning was not consented to by the Redland Shire Council within six months from the date of the signing of the contract or if the terms and conditions of any consent were unsatisfactory to the purchaser, the contract would ipso facto determine and the deposit paid would be refunded. In this event, neither party would retain any further claim upon the other. Clause 32(d) contained an acknowledgement by the vendors that cl.32(a) had been inserted for the benefit of the purchaser and could be waived by the purchaser by notice in writing to the vendors. If satisfactory Council consent was obtained within the requisite period or if the purchaser waived the operation of cl.32(a), cl.41 provided that the date for completion of the contract was thirty days after the date of gazettal of the rezoning in the Queensland Government Gazette or thirty days after the date of waiver.

4. Clause 30 of the contract required $1,000 of the deposit to be paid upon the signing of the contract. This payment was made. The balance…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Braidotti v Queensland City Properties Ltd

Details

AGLC: Braidotti v Queensland City Properties Ltd [1991] HCA 19
Case: [1991] HCA 19
Decision Date: 30 May 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Braidotti v Queensland City Properties Ltd concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Braidotti, and the defendant, Queensland City Properties Ltd. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Queensland City Properties Ltd had breached its duty of care to Braidotti by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of harm. Specifically, the court had to determine if the risk of a person falling from a balcony due to inadequate safety measures was a foreseeable risk that the defendant ought to have guarded against.

The High Court considered the principles of negligence, particularly the duty of care owed by landowners to persons entering their property. The court analysed the foreseeability of the risk of harm, the likelihood of that harm occurring, and the potential seriousness of the injury. It was held that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm, and the adequacy of the safety measures in place was a key factor in determining whether that duty had been breached. The court applied established common law principles regarding the standard of care expected in such circumstances.

The High Court found in favour of Braidotti, holding that Queensland City Properties Ltd had breached its duty of care. The court ordered that Braidotti be awarded damages.

Orders