Hauff v Miller

In the matter of Hauff v Miller, the dispute centred on the interpretation of a standard contract for the sale of an apartment, specifically the second edition of the REIQ/QLS standard form contract for the sale of residential lots under community titles schemes. The respondent, having failed to secure finance approval from the financier specified in the contract within the stipulated time, sought to terminate the contract and reclaim their deposit. The appellants, the vendors, argued that they were entitled to the remedies outlined in the contract, including forfeiture of the deposit, due to the respondent's failure to comply with the finance approval clause.

The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent had fulfilled their obligation to take all reasonable steps to obtain finance approval in accordance with the terms of the contract. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the seller could invoke the contractual remedies provided in the contract alongside common law remedies for breach of contract. A critical issue was whether clause 9.1 of the Standard Terms of the REIQ/QLS Contract of Sale was exclusively for the benefit of the purchaser or if it also provided remedies to the seller.

The court held that the respondent had not taken all reasonable steps to obtain finance approval and thus failed to comply with the terms of the contract. It was further determined that the seller could rely on the contractual remedies specified in clause 9.1 of the Standard Terms in addition to the common law remedies. The court ruled that clause 9.1 was not exclusively for the benefit of the purchaser and that it provided remedies to the seller in the event of the purchaser's failure to comply with the conditions of the contract. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and a declaration was made affirming the vendors' entitlement to the remedies specified in the contract. The respondent was ordered to pay the vendors' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.