Hatzis Lawyers

Personal Property Security Act (PPSA)

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:45:00 +0000

Are you Ready for PPSA?

In 2009, the government passed new legislation called the Personal Property Securities Act (“PPSA”) which has only come into effect as at 30 January 2012. It dramatically alters the way we deal with personal property and the way in which security over personal property can be protected.

Under the PPSA, “Personal Property” is any property except land, fixtures to land and some statutory licences. For example machinery and equipment, inventory, motor vehicles, shares, book debts, receivables, stock, crops, trademarks and patents are all forms of personal property. Your family home will not be personal property under the PPSA.

The PPSA will regulate any “Security Interest” in personal property. The scope of what can constitute a security interest under the PPSA is wide and will include a number of interests which the current law does not recognise as security interests. If you do not protect your existing or future rights in personal property you risk losing your security interest in that property.

The PPSA will affect most businesses and individuals. This bulletin sets out some areas affected by PPSA. If you have transactions in any of these areas or interests in personal property, you should urgently seek advice about what steps you should take to protect your interests, if any.

A new register, called the Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) will commence on 30 January 2012. Existing registered security interests are in the process of being “migrated” from the existing Federal, State and Territory registers (e.g. ASIC charges, REVS, Bills of Sale) to the PPSR.

Security interests that are not currently registrable (e.g. chattel leases, bailments, retention of title, commercial consignments, and vendor finance arrangements) have some protection for a period of two years after the commencement date. You should register these security interests on the PPSR within that two year period if your interest in the personal property is to last longer than two years. However, in some cases, there are additional steps that a secured party should take during this transitional period to protect its interest. This will depend on the nature of the interest.

Whilst there are exceptions, it is essential in most instances to register your security interests in order to obtain priority. By registering your security interest you can prevent another person taking ownership of your goods, particularly if they become insolvent (with some limited exceptions). Any delay in registering your security interest or inaccuracy in the registration could be disastrous. New security interests created after commencement must be registered quickly (there are strict time limits for some securities) and in some cases may be registered before the transaction is completed.

We are keen to provide any advice you may need in order to protect your security interests. Unless you tell us about your security interests we cannot provide the advice.

Failure to protect security interests could be expensive. Because of the significant changes to the law, we urge you to think seriously about the matters raised in this bulletin and contact us if you would like further information.

FREE INFOMATION NIGHT - Family Law Seminar

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:29:00 +0000

FREE INFORMATION NIGHT - Family Law Seminar

WHEN: 14 March 2012
TIME: 6PM
WHERE: 64 Pinelands Road, Sunnybank Hills QLD

Relationship breakdowns can be traumatic, but being informed about Family Law can help! Join local Solicitor GEORGE HATZIS for a free seminar on Wednesday the 14th of March 2012.

Topics include:

Divorce

Property Settlement

Defacto Relationships

Child Matters

Family Court Process

Book now as seats are limited: email marketing@hatzis.com.au or call Toll Free on 1300 428 947 to reserve your seat. Or RSVP on our Facebook page

FREE INFORMATION NIGHT - Family Law Seminar

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:19:00 +0000

WHEN: 9 November 2011
TIME: 6PM
WHERE: 64 Pinelands Road, Sunnybank Hills QLD

Relationship breakdowns can be traumatic, but being informed about Family Law can help! Join local Solicitor GEORGE HATZIS for a free seminar on Wednesday the 9th November 2011.

Topics include:
Divorce, Property Settlement, Defacto Relationships, Child Matters, Family Court Process

Book now as seats are limited: email marketing@hatzis.com.au or call Toll Free on 1300 428 947 to reserve your seat. Or RSVP on our Facebook page

Guarantee Advice - Fixed Fee Service

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:08:00 +0000

We recommend our clients do their homework before committing to going guarantor for another party.

Bank documents are very detailed and therefore it is imperative to fully understand what your requirements and obligations are BEFORE committing to any application.

We deal with financiers of every type every day and know what their requirements are. Let us do the homework for you to allow you to make an informed decision of what you are entering into.

Have confidence that all bases have been covered and that you can be protected before you sign a guarantee.

We offer a speedy turnaround for any advice given and a fixed fee service giving you certainty before you sign the guarantee.

Be informed! Talk to us today about your needs before signing a contract.

Changes to Lot Entitlements and Disclosure in Community Management Statement

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:34:00 +0000

Recent changes to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (BCCMA) in April of this year have made it compulsory for owner’s registering a Community Management Statement (CMS) to outline and record the principles behind the calculation of the contribution and interest schedule lot entitlements. We will now deal with each lot entitlement category separately.

Contribution Lot Entitlements

Pursuant to section 66(db) of the BCCMA, when establishing a scheme, the owner must disclose in the CMS, among other things, the following:

· The contribution schedule principle under section 46(7) on which the contribution schedule lot entitlements have been decided;
· If the contribution schedule lot entitlements have been decided in accordance with the equality principle and are not equal, explain why they are not equal; and
· If the contribution schedule lot entitlements have been decided in accordance with the relativity principle, include sufficient details about the principle to show how the individual contribution schedule lot entitlements for the lots were decided by using it.

The two principles to be used, as provided for in section 46A, are the equality principle and the relativity principle.

The equality principle for deciding contribution schedule lot entitlements for the lots included in a community titles scheme is the principle that the lot entitlements must be equal, except to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for them not to be equal.

The relativity principle for deciding contribution schedule lot entitlements for the lots included in a community titles scheme is the principle that the lot entitlements must clearly demonstrate the relationship between the lots by reference to one or more particular relevant factors.

Interest Lot Entitlements

Pursuant to section 66(dc) of the BCCMA, when establishing a scheme, the owner must disclose in the CMS, among other things, the following:

· if the interest schedule lot entitlements reflect the respective market values of the lots, state that the interest schedule lot entitlements reflect the respective market values of the lots; or
· if the interest schedule lot entitlements do not reflect the respective market values of the lots, explain why the interest schedule lot entitlements do not reflect the respective market values of the lots.

The interest schedule lot entitlements must comply with the market value principle pursuant to clause 46B and if they do not comply with the market value principle, you must explain why.

The market value principle for deciding interest schedule lot entitlements for the lots included in a community titles scheme is the principle that the lot entitlements must reflect the respective market values of the lots, except to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for the individual lot entitlements not to reflect the respective market values of the lots.

These changes have only come into effect as of April this year, and therefore, in order to ensure that you are receiving up-to-date and practical legal advice, come and see the Commercial Team at Hatzis Lawyers and we will be more than happy to assist you.

Taking on Employee's with New Business

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Wed, 18 May 2011 05:25:00 +0000

Using a standard Business contract - Considerations regarding employees when buying an existing business.

When purchasing an existing Business an important factor to take into consideration is the retention or not of the existing employees and key personnel of the business - whether you are to retain them or not !

It may be imperative for you to keep certain staff members on for the continued success of the business or on the other hand, you have may your own trained and ready to go group of staff waiting to start.

No matter which road you take, it is vitally important to ensure the Business Contract reflects your intention in this regard. The Standard REIQ Business Sale Contract (Second Edition) provides for a schedule of employees in the business. You must then notify the Seller in writing as to the employees you wish to employ and those you do not.

Under standard condition 18.3 you must then offer employment on specific terms and conditions to those employees to commence on the Settlement Date on no less favorable terms than their existing employment. This is normally understood.

What is not normally understood - If you do not offer employment on the specified terms and conditions to the Seller’s employees, then you will be responsible for any redundancy payments made to the employee by the Seller and further will need to indemnify the Seller for any other loss or claim by or relating to the redundancy of that employee – standard condition 18.5.

Furthermore, for the employees who do accept your offer of employment, the Standard Conditions state that the Seller only reimburses you (by way of adjustment at settlement) for 70% of the aggregate value of the employee’s entitlements such as sick leave, annual leave and long service leave – standard condition 18.8.

These clauses, among many others, should be seriously considered and if necessary negotiate changes with the seller prior to signing the Contract to protect your interests and ensure that you are not out of pocket unnecessarily.

As part of our service come and see the Commercial team at Hatzis Lawyers before you sign any business purchase contract so that we may advise you on issues such as this and make the appropriate changes to the Contract with our custom made special conditions or assist you with the negotiations.

Unfair Contract Terms

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Tue, 17 May 2011 22:39:00 +0000

From 1 July 2010 new trade practices legislation has been introduced regarding unfair contract terms in standard form consumer contracts. These changes will affect all businesses, large or small, alike.

These changes apply to standard form contracts that are generally not open for negotiation and are produced to a consumer by a business in order for the supply or sale of goods and services – generally for that consumer’s personal or domestic use or consumption. This may include terms and conditions of trade, credit polices and the like.

There seems to be a presumption that any ‘consumer contract’ is deemed to be a standard form contract (thus attracting these new provisions) unless proven otherwise by the business relying on the terms of the contract. The reforms even go so far as suggesting that businesses must be prepared to provide sufficient evidence to show that the contract is not standard form. Businesses must be wary of this.

To determine whether a term is unfair is highly subjective and will be judged on a case by case basis. There is no magic formula and a determination will depend on (among other things) the negotiations surrounding the terms, the bargaining power of each party, industry standards and of course the subject matter of the Contract.

The general tests to determine an unfair term are as follows:
· Does it cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations;
· Is it not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party who is advantaged by the term; and
· Does it cause detriment to a party if the term were to be applied or relied on.
These limbs must all be proven for a court to determine a term unfair.
The true scope of the reforms is yet to be properly tested to see whether the changes have merit.

It would be hard to speculate at this stage how stringently the courts will enforce these provisions, however businesses should seek legal advice as to any consumer contracts they are currently using and any potential unfair terms that may be lurking inside.

Upon sighting your terms and conditions or other such standard form contracts, Hatzis Lawyers can provide you with a fixed fee quote in order for one of our commercial solicitors to review the document and advise you in this regard.

Retail Shop Leases Act

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 06 May 2011 05:34:00 +0000

Recent amendments to the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 have made provisions commonly known as ‘ratchet’ rent provisions void in any lease for a retail shop. Ratchet provisions are defined in the new section 36A of the Act as follows:

‘ratchet rent provision means any provision of a retail shop lease to the extent that it—
(a) prevents, or enables the Lessor or another person to prevent, the rent decreasing under a rent review; or
(b) limits or specifies, or allows the limitation or specification of, the amount by which the rent may decrease under a rent review; or
(c) prevents, or allows the avoidance of, the rent review by the Lessor or another person for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).’

The common understanding of the ratchet rent provision is a mechanism whereby the review of rental is such that the rent for the subsequent lease year is either the review amount (be it a market or CPI review) provided it is no less than the rental for the current lease year. An example of which would be a market review where if such review resulted in a decrease of rental, the rental amount would be ratcheted and therefore remain at the current rental for the subsequent lease year rather than decreasing.

This has been a common practice by Landlords for some time.

The definition above seems broad and is yet to be fully tested in a court. It is unclear whether the intention behind the amendment is to broaden the generally accepted definition of a ratchet rent provision or whether it is meant to reinforce it.

If you are a landlord our advice generally would be to keep rental reviews at a fixed percentage to avoid any ambiguity or potential pitfalls.

Whether you wish to rent your retail shop or are entering into a lease in a retail shop as tenant, come and see us at Hatzis Lawyers so you can be sure you are getting the latest up to date advice. Contact us on commercial@hatzis.com.au

Personal Property Securities Act 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 06 May 2011 05:20:00 +0000

In 2009, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, replacing more than 70 pieces of legislation Australia wide and several Registers in the States and Territories.

The Act creates the Personal Property Security Register, containing details of secured property and which is available for searching. The Act further contains provisions for enforcing interests on the default of a party, and rules for when property may be free of a security interest and for determining priority between competing interests.

Section 12(1) of the Act provides that a security interest is an “interest in relation to personal property provided for by a transaction that, in substance, secures payment or performance of an obligation”.

A security interest is only enforceable when the grantor (debtor) has rights over or powers to transfer collateral (the personal property) and the secured party (creditor) gives value for the transfer of those rights.

The Act provides for lots of different applications, depending upon who is seeking to enforce the interest. If, for example, the parties are seeking to enforce the interest amongst themselves, all that needs to be proven is that the security was attached to the property. Attachment under the Act is merely that the grantor (possessor of rights over the property) has rights to transfer their rights to the property or its use and that value or some act was done giving rise to the interest.

If the security interest is being enforced against a third party, not only is attachment necessary, but also perfection. Perfection requires that the third party has some possessory rights over the property or that there is a compliant security agreement in writing signed by the grantor.

COAG (Council of Australian Governments) has delayed the Act coming into force until a date to be set in October 2011 due to an Amendment Bill currently being debated by the Federal Parliament in response to concerns raised by stakeholders.

If you have any queries in relation to how this Act may affect your business, please don’t hesitate to contact our Commercial law team on 1300 428 947 or at commercial@hatzis.com.au

Dispute Resolution Clauses In Building Contracts

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:43:00 +0000

We have recently seen clients who saw us seeking advice concerning defective building works in relation to a building contract which involved the construction of their home pool.

Unfortunately basic things like checking whether the appropriate pool builder is a member of a recognized building association such as SPASA is an important fact to assist with dispute resolution especially when a lot of professional organizations will have their standard procedures in place for such dispute resolution and can assist.

In this particular contract in question there was no dispute resolution clause which meant the clients only had formal court options to consider rather than being able to press for the matter to be resolved by a conciliator or mediator appointed by the relevant professional body.

If you think your contracts may be deficient in these areas, see us first by calling 1300 428 947 or email commercial@hatzis.com.au

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0000

In 2010 the Commonwealth Labor Government introduced amendments to the existing Trade Practices Act. As part of those changes the Act was renamed to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

As part of the first draft of amendments to this area of law the government has introduced provisions relating to “unfair contracts”.

This relates to contracts that which would be better known in any industry as standard contracts for a particular organization or enterprise. As part of those changes the government has introduced nine consumer guarantees that must apply to such standard contracts and to ensure that they are not unfair contracts.

Those guarantees range from ensuring that goods are of an acceptable quality on sale to a consumer - this is given by both the supplier and the manufacturer – to ensuring that the supplier guarantees that goods are reasonably fit for any purpose the consumer or supplier specifies at the time of entering into the agreement.

Suppliers and manufacturers now have to guarantee that their description of goods in marketing materials and in representations made about those products are accurate and that any samples or demonstrations given match the provided product.

Further, service providers now have to guarantee that services are provided with due care and skill, that their services are fit for the purpose intended, and that services are provided within a reasonable timeframe if a timeframe is set.

Even though some of the changes introduced by the government do not come into effect until 2012, companies need to start reviewing and amending their practices to comply now to ensure that they are compliant when the laws come into full effect.

A further change that the government has introduced is that providers of products and services can no longer have policies or documentation stating it does not offer refunds or does not offer refunds on sale items.

Under the new guarantees any faulty or unfit goods must be exchanged regardless of the price it was purchased at. If you think that your policies or procedures may be non-compliant, please feel free to ring us at 1300 428 947 or email us at commercial@hatzis.com.au – we have a fixed fee service to review your existing terms and conditions and look forward to assisting you.

INSURANCE CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT FLOODING

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:22:00 +0000

Following the recent inundations throughout most of the State, insurance companies will start to receive the numerous claims that people will be lodging for losses that were suffered. People need to be aware, however, that their policy may not cover flood damage. Especially for those who live in areas which were affected by the 1974 floods, insurance companies may often have flood prohibitive clauses in their policy statements. Simply put, these clauses restrict claims in the event that the inundation happened as a result of expanding rivers, dams and lakes.

This is not the first time that this issue has been raised. In Hams v CGU Insurance Ltd [2002] NSWSC 273, Justice Einstein was required to consider whether the inundation as a result of torrential rain fell within the scope of the definition of flood as contained within the policy.

In that case the plaintiff’s leased a sheep station in New South Wales. The land which they leased had various depressions running through it, which were described by the parties and by His Honour as a valley. The plaintiff’s had most of the buildings of their sheep station in the lower areas of these valleys.

The insurance policy that the plaintiff had with the defendant specifically excluded flood damage, and defined flood as “inundation following the escape of water from the normal confines of any lake, reservoir, dam, river, creek or navigable canal, as the result of a natural phenomenon which has some element of violence, suddenness or largeness about it but does not mean inundation of water from fixed apparatus, fixed tanks, fixed pipes or run off of surface water from surrounding areas”.

The defendant denied liability under policy that the run off which caused flooding and severe damage to the plaintiff’s property in the valley, was as a result of the expansion of rivers and lakes in the surrounding areas. In the alternative, the defendants argued that the damage was caused partly by flood and therefore it was also excluded under the policy in pursuance of the Wayne Tank principle (as laid down in Wayne Tank And Pump Co Ltd v The Employers Liability Insurance Corporation Ltd [1974] QB 57).

The plaintiff’s argued that the run off was surface water by virtue of the lay of the land, namely that it was in a valley and that water would be running downhill from the torrential rain.

Further section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act of NSW required insurers of certain contracts to either comply with the standards established by regulation or clearly point out to their clients that the Policy with which they were purchasing is not in accordance with the standards established by Regulation.

Justice Einstein held that the Plaintiff’s could not prove that the body of water they allege expanded and escaped from its natural confines was a lake as they could not define the natural confines of that body of water. Therefore, the first ground of the Plaintiff’s claim failed. At that point the Plaintiff’s second claim that the Defendant had failed to comply with the Insurance Contracts Act became the primary consideration of the Court.

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission, who intervened to make submissions on the interpretation of section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act, submitted that it would depend entirely upon the method and wording of such communications outlining a policies failure to comply with Regulation which would become subject of a section 35 claim.

Ultimately his Honour agreed with the Commissions Submission but held that in this case the mere provision of the policy which clearly laid out the flood exclusion was sufficient to satisfy section 35 of the Act. Ultimately his Honour dismissed the claim.

As you can see from above, construction of a policy is of vast importance to determining exactly what events are covered. Should you have any queries about your policy or be having issues claiming for recent flood damage please do not hesitate to contact our Commercial Law Team on 1300 428 947 or at commercial@hatzis.com.au

Radical Reform in the High Court: Youth Allowance

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:16:00 +0000

In a move that sent Australian legislatures reeling, the High Court handed down three rather controversial decisions on Thursday, 11th November 2010, which were reported in the media. The three cases declared invalid or altered the interpretation of several key provisions in laws that have been making headlines over the recent months.

The final case handed down revolved around the Social Security Act 1991 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis, the Court ruled that youth allowance under the Social Security Act were to be classed as income for the purposes of a tax return. Further, at [38] of the majority Judgment, their Honours held “that expenses occasioned by [Ms Anstis’] enrolment, full-time study and satisfactory progress in that degree were incurred by [Ms Anstis] as a recipient of youth allowance. The outgoings did not lose their connection with the "position" she held as a recipient of youth allowance simply because she might have been studying for reasons other than enjoying an entitlement to youth allowance.”

Effectively, this decision says that a University student who receives youth allowance is able to claim as deductibles such resources as stationary, computers and textbooks. (Note that we are not able to give financial advice, this is not to be taken as financial advice and should you wish to see how this affects you we strongly encourage you to discuss the matter with your accountant or financial adviser).

Radical Reform in the High Court: Immigration Law

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:13:00 +0000

In a move that sent Australian legislatures reeling, the High Court handed down three rather controversial decisions on Thursday, 11^th November 2010, which were reported in the media. The three cases declared invalid or altered the interpretation of several key provisions in laws that have been making headlines over the recent months.

The second of the decisions, Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia, concerned the right of appeal for decisions regarding off-shore processing of illegal immigrants and refugees.

The provisions that were declared invalid here are the provisions that concern the review of the detainee’s legal position (ie. whether they fall within the Refugee Convention as amended by the Refugee Protocol). In coming to its decision, the Court held that as the provisions did not place a duty upon the Minister to comply with the International Convention, Migration Act, or the case law then it was not subject to declaratory relief from the High Court as laid out in s 75(v) of the Constitution. As such, the provisions could not operate in a manner consistent with the High Courts jurisdiction under the Constitution and any decision made under those provisions must therefore comply with the Convention, Act and case law to be valid.

Radical Reform in the High Court: Anti-Bikie Laws

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:10:00 +0000

One of the decisions, South Australia v Totani, concerned the South Australian Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 – the Act which forms the framework for the Queensland Criminal Organisation Act 2009. The central provisions, which required the Magistrates Court to issue control orders to those organisations and people the Attorney-General deemed to be part of a criminal organization, were declared invalid in individual Justices of the Court. The primary reasoning behind the judgments was that to place such an obligation upon the Judiciary struck at the fundamental aspects of the Rule of Law which guides and protects the Australian citizenship.

However, due to the structure of the Queensland Act, it is unlikely to be struck down on similar grounds. That Act gives the Supreme Court a power to review the decision of the Attorney-General, thereby still guaranteeing the Judiciary their independence from the other arms of Government.

Google to Pay Libel Damages

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:12:00 +0000

Reuters has reported that the Superior Court of France has ordered Google Inc to pay 5,000 euro to a man claiming that searching for his name on the search engine resulted in suggestions harmful to his reputation. When users searched for the man’s name, “rape” and “prison” were suggested as possible keywords (he had previously been convicted and imprisoned for corrupting a minor).

Counsel for Google argued that Google Suggest was a constantly changing function based on other users searches on the same or similar topics; it was not a deliberate or malicious decision on the part of the Directors or Technicians of the company.

Libel can be easiest explained as defamatory material which is published and distributed. In Australia, the distinction between libel and slander (both forms of defamation) was removed following the introduction of the Uniform Defamation Laws in the Australian States. A spokesperson for Google Inc. has confirmed that they will be appealing the Superior Court’s decision.

The full article can be found here http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE68O14020100925

Building and Pest Inspection - Do you need one?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:36:00 +0000

Yes, we recommend that you do.

A Building and Pest Inspection Report can help you identify any structural faults or defects in the property that were not apparent from a visual inspection. If your contract is subject to satisfactory Building and Pest Inspection reports, you can terminate the contract before the Building and Pest Inspection date if there are problems with the reports you receive.

Recent changes to the standard REIQ contracts require you to notify the Seller if you are satisfied with the inspections or if you intend to terminate the contract by 5pm on the inspection date or the Seller will be able to terminate the contract.

Previous versions of the standard REIQ contracts allow the Seller to deem the reports you have obtained to be satisfactory if you do not notify the Seller of your intentions before 5pm on the inspection date.

Remember to ensure that any building and/or pest inspector you engage holds the appropriate licenses and that you obtain a copy of the written report.

Prior Inspection - Do you need one?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:38:00 +0000

Yes. We recommend you do one on the day of settlement.

The standard terms and conditions of the Contract only allow one inspection by the Buyer prior to Settlement. It is recommended that on the day of settlement you arrange with the Real Estate Agent for a convenient time for an inspection at the premises to ensure the property is in the same condition as when you first inspected the property before you sign the Contract.

Collection of Keys on settlement.

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:36:00 +0000

Can you arrange to collect the keys? Absolutely.

It is our usual practice to have the keys left at the Real Estate Agent’s Office for collection by you following completion of the Settlement at your convenience. However, we can arrange to have the keys to the property handed over at settlement on your behalf, but you will then have to arrange to have the keys collected from our office. Unless we hear from you to the contrary, we will arrange to have the keys to the property left at the Real Estate Agent’s Office for collection by you.

Services to Property - Should I co-ordinate them?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:35:00 +0000

Yes. Services to the property such as telephone, electricity and gas (if connected) should be transferred to your name to ensure the services are properly connected prior to settlement. You should make the appropriate arrangements with the relevant authorities and the Seller prior to completion.

Insurance. When should I obtain Insurance for the property?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:35:00 +0000

As at the date of the Contract.

The Law deems that the property is owned by you as at the date of the contract, being the legal point of sale therefore if any damage occurs to the property, you may be responsible for the damage unless it can be shown that the damage was as a result of wilful neglect or destruction by the Seller. If you have not obtained insurance, the property burns down and the seller does not have insurance, you will have to proceed with the contract regardless.

As the property is at your risk from the date of the contract we therefore urge you to immediately arrange insurance cover over the property to protect yourself in the case of damage or destruction to the property and its fixtures. If you need any assistance in this regard please do not hesitate and seek our advice. A Certificate of Insurance noting a fully paid premium and your financier’s name as First Mortgagee will be required prior to them releasing any finance to you.

Settlement Date. Can I depend on the settlement date being fixed?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:34:00 +0000

Yes you can. Please note that the Contract stipulates that "time in all respects is to remain the essence of the Contract". Only if the Seller is agreeable can there be any extension of the settlement date nominated in the Contract.

Please keep this provision in mind because if you do not comply with your obligations under the Contract on the due date, you may be in breach of the terms of the Contract and the Seller may have certain remedies against you, including forfeiture of the deposit.

Building restrictions of my house. Are there any?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:33:00 +0000

Yes there may be! If the property is effected by covenants / restrictions on use, the terms should be set out in a document attached to the contract. We suggest that you hand a copy of the covenants to your Builder, as the covenants impose certain restrictions and requirements with respect to the building of improvements on the property as to the area, height, building materials, garages etc.

Please also note that the covenants may contain a condition stating that should you contract to sell the property in the future, you agree to include a special condition in the contract that the new Buyer will also be bound by the same terms and conditions as the covenants contained in this contract.

We can advise you as to the wording of any covenant to ensure that you understand its effect on the building of any dwelling on the property. If in doubt, please seek our advice.

Buying a property. Can I keep specific items?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:32:00 +0000

Yes. In order to do so, each item must be listed on the contract as an included Chattel.

Purchasing a home. Does the house include the fixtures?

noreply@blogger.com (Hatzis Lawyers) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:31:00 +0000

Absolutely. The sale of the property includes all fixtures on the property. A fixture is something that is attached to the land that must have been intended to remain there permanently. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether an item is a fixture ie: television antennae, fencing, clothes