It’s great to see the increasing number of our clients taking advantage of the new KiwiSaver HomeStart package – with the Government confirming the scheme is off to the same cracking start nationally that we’re seeing in our parts.
Having recently clocked the big 2-0 in my legal career, I started doing a bit of a recreational, back-of-the-envelope tally of how many property transactions I’ve clocked up during that time – I got into the many thousands very quickly, felt old, and stopped.
A recent High Court decision (Johnson & Ors v Auckland Council) develops the law around the extent of a buyer’s liability for failing to complete proper due diligence checks when buying a leaky home. The case shows that the compensation paid to a buyer will be reduced if the buyer does not take adequate care when deciding to buy, even if the Council has been negligent.
A residential property was being auctioned in Auckland. The auction stalled at a price of $2.5 million. The vendors had set a reserve of $2.7 million. The auctioneer halted the auction while he asked the vendors whether they would be prepared to reduce the reserve price. The vendors agreed to reduce the reserve price to $2.6 million.
The Court of Appeal recently had to decide the meaning of a condition in a sale and purchase agreement which made the purchase of a property “subject to and conditional upon … approval of directors”. This is the first time that a “subject to director’s approval” clause has been considered by a New Zealand court.
A recent High Court case shows that, in some circumstances, buyers of a property cannot rely totally on a code compliance certificate, but may have to undertake further investigations themselves. This will have implications for agents in circumstances where buyers ask them whether the purchase should be conditional on a builders report.
The High Court, in a recent case (Quin v the Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] NZHC), has discussed what obligations an agent has to explain defects to a potential purchaser. It has also clarified whether a Complaints Assessment Committee (“CAC”) can order an agent to pay damages if there is a breach of those obligations.
