BSBCNV505 Finalise Conveyancing Transaction: Property Law Solutions

This assignment provides solutions to several problems related to property law and conveyancing transactions. It addresses the classification of items as chattels or fixtures, the necessary documentation for property sales under s 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962, and the implications of missing items before settlement. Further, it discusses the requirements for transferring estates, restrictive covenants, and duty-free land transfers within trusts. The assignment also covers the doctrine of caveat emptor, purchaser rights under vendor insurance policies (s 35 and s 50 of the Sale of Land Act), and the legalities surrounding fencing notices and zoning information. Finally, it delves into contract law, including the capacity of parties, the validity of contract alterations, and the rules for early deposit release under section 27 of the SOLA. Desklib offers a variety of resources, including past papers and solved assignments, to support students in their studies.

Running head: PROPERTY LAW
PROPERTY LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
PROPERTY LAW
Answer 11
A chattel is an item which is not fixed to the land and a fixture is in item which is affixed to land
and looks like the part of the land itself. In the given situation as the size of the pool is large it
may be a fixture, however as it is not fixed to the ground and above it, the pool would be taken
as a chattel. In the same way as the fence is also not fixed to the ground it would be taken as a
chattel.
Answer 16
In this situation we can ask the vendor to provide all the documents which are mandated under
the provisions of s 32 to be provided in relation to the statement. The specific sections which
should be applied in the situation would be in s 32I in relation to disclosing title and s 32J in
relation to notice.
Answer 17
There is not enough evidence in the situation to allow them to refuse settlement. This is because
firstly the contract was silent in this point and secondly the parole evidence rule only allows
terms which are written to be a part of the contract once it is documented. Further, the missing
items may be considered as a warranty of the contract and not condition. Therefore breach of
warranties cannot be used to refuse settlement. However a claim for damages may be made.
Answer 18
The first requirement which Keiko has to meet is to have an agreement with the beneficiaries of
the state. These are the people who are going to get the estate after Keiko dies. If there is no

2
PROPERTY LAW
agreement between them and Keiko, the transfer is not valid and the estate would pass to the
beneficiaries after Keiko’s death.
Answer 19
The certificate of title would have the restrictive covenant. A written contract is also needed
between Su and Hew with Keiko.
Answer 20
The trustee is allowed to transfer land under the Duties Act without being subjected to duties in
case the transfer is done in relation to the legal beneficiary and the land is acquired after the
creation of trust between the parties. In the present situation a trust was formed before the
acquisition of land. This means that the transfer of land would be duty free under the Act from
the mother to William.
Answer 29
In light of the facts of the case the doctrine of caveat emptor would be applicable. This is
because William knew about the fact that the land was to be used by Rod for a restaurant where a
minimum of 20 car parking space was needed. Further, he also has information that the
municipality would use the space before the settlement takes place.
Answer 32
The application for s 35 of Sale of Land Act ensures the benefit of the purchaser through an
insurance held by the vendor. Under s35(1) the purchaser is provided the legal right through
which he needs to be compensated by the insurer in the same as it would have compensated the

3
PROPERTY LAW
vendor in situation where the sale of land did not take place. In light of the facts and above
discussed law, am would be able to benefit from the insurance policy held by the vendor.
Answer 46
A- No a fencing notice is not needed to be disclosed by the vendor under s 32 as the section does
not mandate information about a fencing notice to be provided.
B- Yes, the information is needed under the Planning and zoning information head of s 32 as
this section expressly deals with the use.
C- The purchaser has the right to rely on vender insurance under s 50 of the legislation
D- The insurer would be liable to the loss of the purchaser under s 35 of Sale of Land Act this is
because under the section the purchaser is provided the legal right through which he needs to
be compensated by the insurer in the same as it would have compensated the vendor in
situation where the sale of land did not take place.
E- The insurer is liable to compensate the purchaser in the same as it would have compensated the
vendor in situation where the sale of land did not take place
F- The coverage ends when possession is taken by the purchaser. The legal principle behind it is
that there is no contract between the purchaser and the insurer.
G- Because exceptions to section 27 do not include finance, the deposit is legally entitled to be
received.
H- The main Act is Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 and the subordinate Act is
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
Answer 48

4
PROPERTY LAW
In this situation my advice would be that the sale is to be made only by one title as it would help
the purchaser save stamp duty and other complications.
Answer 54
The two exceptions state that the parties should not have an unsound mind or a minor when the
contract is created or a person prohibited by law and the consent provided by the party has to be
free meaning that there is no duress, misrepresentation, coercion or unconscionable conduct.
When a person does not have capacity to get contract any agreement made by them can be
rendered as void. In addition, even if the consent of the parties have not been legally obtained it
would be considered as sufficient for making the contract void or voidable at the option of the
party.
Answer 62
Under the rules of FCT v McDonalds a sale of property takes place when the contract between
the parties had been signed. In this situation also the contract between the parties had been
signed before. In case any alternation is needed in the contract it would require a new
consideration and would not be valid otherwise. Here the addition of the new terms to the
contract would not be considered as legally binding and is not mandatory to allow. Further in
case the terms are nit in the interest of the vendor they may be rejected by the vendor as a
meeting of minds may be required for the formation of a contract. Unless the vender agrees to
get the new terms added to the contract they are not to be added as contractual terms.
Under section 27 of the SOLA rules in relation to deposits have been provided. under this section
the vendor can claim an early deposit which is before the date of settlement. In a few situations it
may be considered as safe to let the vendor have early access to the money before the settlement

5
PROPERTY LAW
is conducted. For this to take place both the contractual parties are required to sign the early
release of deposit form. This allows the person holding the deposit to release the amount. In case
the agent of the lawyer does not consider it safe to release the deposit early they may advice the
purchaser form not allowing the release. In the present situation also where the agent is not
finding it safe to release the deposit it would make it totally legal to not allow it under section 27.