Fletcher v Kakemoto

In this case, the purchaser, Fletcher, signed a contract to purchase a unit from the vendor, Kakemoto. Prior to signing the offer, Fletcher signed a warning statement which outlined the statutory obligations and restrictions relating to the contract for sale. After the offer was signed, changes were made to the contract and the cooling off period was waived. Fletcher signed the amended contract but did not sign a new warning statement before doing so. Kakemoto later sought to terminate the contract, arguing that the purchaser had failed to sign a new warning statement as required by statute.

The court was required to decide whether the purchaser was required to sign a new warning statement before signing the amended contract. The court also had to determine whether the purchaser's failure to sign a new warning statement rendered the contract voidable. In addition, the court had to consider whether the purchaser's signature on the amended contract constituted a valid termination of the contract.

The court held that the purchaser was not required to sign a new warning statement before signing the amended contract. The court found that the warning statement signed prior to the offer was sufficient to satisfy the statutory obligations and restrictions relating to the contract for sale. The court also held that the purchaser's failure to sign a new warning statement did not render the contract voidable. Finally, the court found that the purchaser's signature on the amended contract did not constitute a valid termination of the contract. The court held that the purported termination of the contract was invalid.

The court's decision has important implications for purchasers and vendors in real estate transactions. The court's finding that the warning statement signed prior to the offer was sufficient to satisfy the statutory obligations and restrictions relating to the contract for sale means that purchasers may not be required to sign a new warning statement every time a contract is amended. This could potentially streamline the negotiation and execution of real estate contracts. However, the court's finding that the purchaser's signature on the amended contract did not constitute a valid termination of the contract means that vendors should take care to ensure that any amendments to a contract are properly executed and that any purported terminations of a contract are validly executed.