Skip to content

Your Say - Contract of Sale Review 2020 - Standard Conditions

You are invited to answer as many or as few of these questions as you see fit.
Tip:  You will need a printed current version of the Law Society | REIT Standard Conditions of Sale in front of you before answering (supplied with link).
1.Is the Standard Conditions document user friendly?
2.Is the preamble sufficiently comprehensive?
3.Should Clause 2(a) include a provision stating what it means for the Deposit Holder to hold the Deposit ‘as stakeholder’?
4.Should clauses 2(c) and 2(d) regarding the value of chattels be removed?
5.Have sub-clauses 3(d) and 3(e) been found to be adequate and effective in practice?
6.Are the time periods in sub-clauses 3(d) and 3(e) appropriate?
7.Are the provisions of sub-clauses 4(a) and 4(b) an improvement on similar provisions in previous versions of the standard form contract?
8.In what way, if any, are sub-clauses 4(a) and 4(b) less preferred than similar provisions in previous versions of the standard form contract?
9.Does Clause 4 in your view require amendment?
10.Although sub-clause 4(b) offers examples of legal restrictions, without limitation, should there be additions to the list of examples in paragraphs (i) – (iv)?
11.Is the term “The Property is sold As Is/Where Is” sufficiently clear and unambiguous?
12.Does the provision referred to in Q11 compromise the rights of a purchase pursuant to sub-clause 4(a)?
13.Should clause 4(f) be amended to include rights for the party benefitted by a condition precedent when the condition is unable to be met?
14.Are the provisions of Clause 9(b) satisfactory as a default position?  Bearing in mind:

  • The sub-clause is prefaced with the words “Except as otherwise provided…”; and
  • Simply saying that the Vendor makes no legally binding warranty, description, or representation as to the matters mentioned does not preclude other remedies being available to a purchaser such as pursuant to sub-clause 4(a).
15.Should sub-clause 15(a) be amended to insert the words “at any time before or after completion of this Contract” between the word “Vendor” and the words “to contribute to the cost”?
16.Should sub-clause 15(a) be prefaced with the words “Unless this Contract otherwise provides”?
17.Have the provisions of Clause 16 been found to be adequate and effective in practice?
18.Have the provisions of Clause 17 been found to be adequate and effective in practice?
19.Have the provisions of Clause 20 been found to be adequate and effective in practice?
20.Should the provisions of Clause 21 be amended to spell out the procedure that is actually followed in accordance with long-established custom? Specifically, the term “must be apportioned” in sub-clause 21(b) does not make it clear that, at settlement, a purchaser is obliged to pay relevant monies for rates and land tax.
21.Should the contract provide that risk in the property and chattels passes to the purchaser on completion or possession (whichever is the first to occur)?
22.Should the contract provide for disclosure of Neighbourhood Disputes About Plants Act notices/disputes?
23.Should the contract provide for disclosure of:
24.Should the contract contain suggested time frames i.e. for payment of the deposit, finance clause and inspection clause?
25.Should the contract refer in greater detail to leases that affect the property and the respective rights of the parties
26.Are there any other issues not covered by the document that should be covered?
27.Do you have any other feedback (suggestions, complaints, recommendations)?
28.Your name (optional):