Civil Law

Running head: CIVIL LAW
CIVIL LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CIVIL LAW
Question 1
In the Conveyancing Act 1919 section 57 the conditions for the sale of any land under the
Real Property Act 1900 have been discussed. As per the Real Property Act 1900 a purchaser is
entitled to be receiving from the vendor all the particulars of the title that are sufficient for the
preparations of the appropriate dealings affecting the contract, receiving an abstract of an
instrument that is seen to be forming any part of the title of the vendor in respect of the caveat
that has been entered upon the Register which is maintained under the Act, having relevant
certificate or title or any document lodged with the Register-General, in case of the presence of
any objections raised by the purchaser on the particulars or abstract present for the dealing
having them removed by the vendor. Under section 29A of the Act the purchasers are protected
from the claims of certain void appointments. Section 88BA of the Act under the registration of
the Real Property Act 1900 provides for the covenants imposed for the maintenance and repairs
of the land where necessary. Under section 54B of the Act damages are awarded by the courts
for any kind of defect in the vendor’s title as seen in the Rule in Bain v Fothergill [1976]. Under
section 55 of the Act although a purchaser is not entitled to rescind a contract however he is
entitled to recover his deposits, installments and any other expenses made for the investigation of
the title and the purchaser would further be relieved from all the liabilities of the contract in case
where there is a defect in the title of the vendor. In this case Emily and David can be seen to be
eligible to claim damage under all the above-mentioned sections.

2CIVIL LAW
Question 2
In this case it is seen that Sandra has contracted a real estate agent known as Matthew for
the sale of her property. In the agreement it has been provided that Matthew would be using his
best efforts for selling the property within the price range between $ 400,000 and $ 450,000 in
three months in exchange for a commission of 3% on the price of the sale of the property. It is
further seen that Sandra has been continuously harassed by Matthew to sell her property who
called her 4-5 times a day to pressurize her to sell her property to the recent purchase offers
putting emphasis on the issues in the property. In the case Hyder v McGrath Pty Ltd [2017] it
was held by the court that even if there is no loss the misconduct of the agent would be held
liable under the Australian Consumer Law section 18 that is set out under the schedule 2 of the
Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Thus in this case Matthew can be seen to be in breach of
the provision of the Australian Consumer Law set out under the Competition and Consumer Act
2010 schedule 2. However Sandra cannot cancel paying Matthew his commission as the sale was
done as per the conditions of the Agency Agreement. Hence by not paying Matthews Sandra
would be in breach of the agreement and can face serious legal consequences.
Question 3
In this case Anne can be seen to be in negligence for not reading the complete sign given
in the car-park. However the owners or operators of the car-park are also seen to be negligent
towards their duties. In the current case it is seen that Anne had parked her car in a car-park that
was situated outside a movie theatre where there was sign whose heading was only visible from
the car. The remaining words of the sign were written in very small letters and even on the
tickets of the car-park’s entry there was nothing mentioned. However in the sign one of the