Buyer Signs Contract for House, Full Deposit Not Received for 48 Hours, Seller Cancels Contract & Keeps Deposit, Court Agrees

neil on 26/02/2026 - 12:54
Last edited 26/02/2026 - 14:07 by 1 other user

Article from Yahoo via AusFinance

Official Queensland Supreme Court Decision

Found this to be an insane court decision.

TLDR;

  • Buyer signs contract to buy a house for $985k on 22/1/24.
  • Deal confirmed on 23/1/24 and deposit requested.
  • Due to $50k transfer limit on bank and buyer not able to attend branch on that day, no deposit is sent on 23/1/24.
  • Buyer sends $45,000 of $98,500 deposit on 24/1/24 with confirmation from agent.
  • Buyer sends $40,000, $10000 and brother sends $3500, all on 25/1/24. Deposit is now complete.
  • Seller cancels contract on 29/1/24 due to late deposit.
  • Court decision is made 27/2/25.
  • Seller sells house to another buyer for $829,000 on 8/9/25. A $155K loss to the seller from previous non-sale.

Only winners here are the solicitors.

Financial

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • vorsprung on 26/02/2026 - 13:00
    +57

    Ah I didn’t know the vendor then went on to sell the house for less. Good. Seems like they got their just deserts.

    • foursaken on 26/02/2026 - 13:20
      +16

      and just desserts

      • brucemcbruce on 28/02/2026 - 20:49
        +5

        Weirdly, even though the phrase is pronounced like "dessert", the correct spelling is "desert" - it comes from the same word root as "deserve".

    • MS Paint on 26/02/2026 - 13:22
      +9

      got their just deserts.

      Simpson, Sahara & Mojave?

      • Kiro on 01/03/2026 - 18:25

        Bonus hundreds and thousands on top

    • otter01 on 26/02/2026 - 14:04
      +20

      Apparently 'sold' to a family member

    • Dr Phil on 27/02/2026 - 07:40
      -5

      Yes, very confusing indeed.

      But note the 2 public holidays during the transfers.

      And also the fact that the deposit was due IN FULL on the date of signing the contract which was 23 December

      There would have been delays in the vendor receiving the full deposit within the specificed period.

      But what seller cancels the contract under such conditions?

      And what "foolish" buyer purchases a property and signs contract during the Christmas Shutdown period?

      And the agent saying everything was OK? Surely they must be liable.

      • fouhay on 27/02/2026 - 08:42
        +2

        Wherr does it talk about 23 December?

      • ForkSnorter on 27/02/2026 - 10:41
        +4

        And this:

        The plaintiff deposed that he believed the realtor had authority to represent the seller in all aspects of the sale due to the contract not nominating any solicitors for the seller and to the fact that all his communications had been with the realtor. Based on the text message of 10:58 am on 24 January 2024 and the absence of any further message to the contrary, he believed the defendant had agreed to him paying the deposit on 24 and 25 January 2024. Had he not received this message from the realtor he would have attended his bank on 24 January 2024 and arranged to pay the deposit in full that day.

        Seller's solicitor did not get involved until 25 January, by which time it is too late.

        This is my experience with solicitors. They are very slow to act and communicate, and this causes problems in rapidly occurring transactions.

        In my opinion, the irresponsible agent and seller's solicitor are at fault here, and seller should not cancel the sale. They have got their deposit. They've got a sale going ahead. What is the reason for cancelling? Because they can pocket $100k and still have a house?

        And why put those strict conditions in the contract in the first place, during the Xmas holiday period? Clearly something going on here, and it seems unreasonable to attribute this entire unusual situation to the buyer's responsibility.

        • freefall101 on 27/02/2026 - 15:50
          +4

          I think you'll find Christmas is on the 25th of December, not the 25th of January.

          • pwnd on 27/02/2026 - 15:53
            +4

            @freefall101: Dr Phil doesn't think. He just hangs off top comment.
            Content is of no importance. Top comment reply is what's most important.

        • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 02:12

          Seller's solicitor did not get involved until 25 January, by which time it is too late.

          On what date did you think he should be involved?

          This is my experience with solicitors. They are very slow to act and communicate, and this causes problems in rapidly occurring transactions.

          This solicitor made contact with buyer's solicitor at 1pm on 25th. That's only 1 1/2 day turn around at most. It doesn't say at what time the seller contacted their solicitor on the 24th.

          And why put those strict conditions in the contract in the first place, during the Xmas holiday period?

          A lot of people celebrate Christmas in December. This contract happened at the end of January.

          s10 says

          "The contract was in the standard form Contract for Houses and Residential Land (18th edition) approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society Inc."

          Seems like they are always there, for everyone.

          So the question now stands, if the buyer didn't agree to those terms, why did he sign the contract?

      • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 02:06

        But note the 2 public holidays during the transfers.

        There was only ne and it was after the transfers were completed.

        Transfers completed by January 25, 2024.
        Australia Day was January 26, 2024.

        And also the fact that the deposit was due IN FULL on the date of signing the contract which was 23 December

        I think the contract was formed when the seller signed the contract on 22 January, 2024. The buyer actually signed on the 22 January 2024.(s10 of court case).

        The clause in the contract about the deposit said it became due in full after both parties had signed the contract.

        The REA informed buyer on 23rd that seller had signed, notified that contract was on foot and deposit was now due that same day as per terms of the contract. (Also s10).

        Thus both parties agreed, and the court confirmed that the contract was on foot on the 23 January, 2024 and that the deposit was due in full on that day.

        There would have been delays in the vendor receiving the full deposit within the specificed period.

        Why?

        And what "foolish" buyer purchases a property and signs contract during the Christmas Shutdown period?

        Ahhh, well there are probably some who do, but all these due dates are usually on business days, public holidays aren't usually counted or allowed.

        And the agent saying everything was OK? Surely they must be liable.

        Apparently not. Besides, court found the ok was about acknowledging what the buyer had said, not saying everything was ok.

        Buyer sent text - "will pay half today (Wednesday 24/1/24) and 1/2 tomorrow (Thursday 25/1/24)"

        REA responded at s21

        “Ok
        As long as I let seller know.
        Two deposits today and tmr”

        Was held that REA was acknowledging buyers text with the OK and was confirming what they were going to tell the seller.

        It was not found that the agent agreed or suggested this was ok.

  • 87percent on 26/02/2026 - 13:06
    +35

    Wha bullshit that seller kept the deposit

    • supersabroso on 27/02/2026 - 09:23
      +2

      Yeah it doesn't make any sense. If the seller gets to cancel because the deposit didn't arrive on time then then that's the end of that, fair enough. However, you can't keep the deposit then pretend that you never got it! That's a dumb contract and the terms and conditions need to be changed for all contracts if it's legally allowed. In NSW this isn't a problem as the deposit is only 0.25% once you sign the contract, not 10%.

      • ForkSnorter on 27/02/2026 - 10:59
        +2

        In NSW this isn't a problem as the deposit is only 0.25% once you sign the contract, not 10%.

        This is the same in QLD. In all my experiences (selling my PPOR or buying new one), small deposit (several thousand) was paid after signing the contract, then the full deposit was paid several weeks later.

        The writer of the article doesn't have a clue:

        When you buy a property, the deposit is typically due on the day you sign the contract.

        Incorrect. An initial small deposit is typically due on the day of the contract or within 24 hours.

        • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 02:19
          +1

          Incorrect. An initial small deposit is typically due on the day of the contract or within 24 hours.

          From s10 of the court transcript

          "The contract was in the standard form Contract for Houses and Residential Land (18th edition) approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society Inc."

          How much more typical does it get than that?

          The writer of the article doesn't have a clue:

          Apparently he at least read the court transcript before commenting.

          • ForkSnorter on 01/03/2026 - 12:00
            +3

            @Muppet Detector:

            Apparently he at least read the court transcript before commenting.

            I read it. Sounds like you didn't read it:

            Quote from the court case proceedings:

            It included some special conditions

            And:

            The contract was subject to a satisfactory building and pest inspection (within seven days) and to satisfactory finance (within 14 days), and settlement was to be 30 days from the contract date.

            According to the court case, this was not an auction, and yet the contract stated the full deposit is due the day of the contract being signed. This is highly unusual.

            Furthermore, having recently sold and bought a house in QLD, I can assure you that the typical contract includes an "Initial deposit" field, followed by due date (typically within 2 days of contract being signed), followed by another "Balance deposit" field, with a due date (typically within a day or 2 after satisfaction of the finance clause, which is often 2 weeks after signing contract).

            Plaintiff had a 2-week finance clause. Consequently, this contract is highly unusual with its requirement to pay the full deposit on the day of singing the contract. Buyer is silly to accept that condition, and seller is dodgy in requiring that condition.

            Finally, there is no requirement that a deposit be 10% of the sale price, as it was in this case. 5% is actually more common.

            • brissg on 01/03/2026 - 19:57

              @ForkSnorter: I agree with this. My family and relatives have purchased properties twice in the past five years, with the most recent one in October, so the process is still quite clear to us. We paid the $5k initial deposit within 72 hours of signing, but we needed 2 days beforehand for our solicitor to review the standard contract and any additional clauses. For a property close to a million dollars, proceeding without legal review would carry significant risk.
              The remaining deposit (bringing the total to 5%) was due once building and pest and finance were approved, which typically happens within 14 days. Under this arrangement, buyers generally do not lose a large amount of money even if they withdraw after the contract becomes unconditional but before settlement. If a buyer commits without doing the necessary checks, that responsibility does not fall on the seller. A solicitor should be consulted before signing, not afterwards.
              In late 2023 and early 2024, the market had cooled slightly due to rising interest rates, so why was the rush? I bought my own three‑bedroom home in Greater Brisbane in late 2023 for $510k, so a property priced close to a million dollars would typically be either significantly larger or located in a premium area. The market only began heating up again around August last year, which I noticed from the increase in calls from agents asking if I was interested in selling. With that context, I can understand the urgency now, but it wouldn’t have made sense back in January 2024.

            • Muppet Detector on 02/03/2026 - 15:32

              @ForkSnorter:

              I read it. Sounds like you didn't read it:

              I definitely read it. If you read it, you did not understand what it said, or you missed bits. Go back and read exactly what it said, word for word, including how and why the court ruled as it did on each point.

              It included some special conditions

              Only one of which was relevant to this case, but turned out not to matter - according to the court transcript I read (the one in the link)

              The contract was subject to a satisfactory building and pest inspection (within seven days) and to satisfactory finance (within 14 days), and settlement was to be 30 days from the contract date.

              The contract terminated before these dates. It terminated when the deposit was not payed on time (well upon notification a few days later)

              These aren't all one continuous extention date. The one relating to the late payment of the deposit came up first and was activated.

              Those ones only became available if the contract was still on foot when they came due. It wasn't. Thus irrelevant clauses for this situation.

              According to the court case, this was not an auction, and yet the contract stated the full deposit is due the day of the contract being signed. This is highly unusual.

              I wasn't aware that anybody thought it was an auction. I certainly didn't.

              Stated full balance due because they only filled out the first two lines in that section. They crossed out the ones allowing for staggered payment etc.

              They filled in total sale price, deposit price (which was 10%) and that it was due upon contract formation which was when both parties had signed the contract.

              Those are the terms they filled in and agreed to.

              Realistically, both signed on the 22nd, but agreed contract was formed on 23rd as this was when REA notified buyer that seller had signed.

              REA also reminded buyer that deposit was now due on that day as per contract.

              can assure you that the typical contract includes an "Initial deposit" field, followed by due date (typically within 2 days of contract being signed), followed by another "Balance deposit" field, with a due date (typically within a day or 2 after satisfaction of the finance clause, which is often 2 weeks after signing contract).

              Transcript said those fields weren't filled in.

              Just had deposit amount, sale price and date due on the top line. They were specific points challenged about the definition of deposit.

              Finally, there is no requirement that a deposit be 10% of the sale price,

              This is true, but the amount filled in was 10%. That's what they agreed to in the transcript.

              Plaintiff had a 2-week finance clause

              Yes, and a B&P.

              However, the court transcript said that the contract was already void before these came into play => were irrelevant to this situation as contract was terminated before these two dates came into effect.

              I read it. Sounds like you didn't read it:

              So, now that you have read the court transcript again, tell me why you feel that I didn't read it?

              • ForkSnorter on 02/03/2026 - 15:43

                @Muppet Detector:

                So, now that you have read the court transcript again, tell me why you feel that I didn't read it?

                Because you were trying to pretend that this was an absolutely normal contract. It wasn't.

                • Muppet Detector on 02/03/2026 - 15:47

                  @ForkSnorter:

                  Because you were trying to pretend that this was an absolutely normal contract. It wasn't.

                  No, you claimed that it did not sound like I read the court transcript, whilst you claimed that you did. As it turns out, apparently I did read it, yes?

                  It was standard form with nothing untoward highlighted or mentioned by the court.

                  Only said one special condition was relevant, but turned out not to be.

                  That's about as normal or as standard as it can get.

                  Subject to B&P and finance clauses are pretty much standard in Qld. Nothing new or abnormal there either.

                  • ForkSnorter on 02/03/2026 - 15:55

                    @Muppet Detector: Yep, good luck finding another non-auction contract with the full 10% deposit due on the contract date.

                    • Muppet Detector on 02/03/2026 - 17:17

                      @ForkSnorter: The buyer submitted the contract with that term and figure in it. The buyer did not cross that out or substitute another figure.

                      You brought up the special terms and conditions, the buyer knew about those, he had even organised a building and pest inspection.

                      The buyer knew what was in that contract. He signed that contract and he voluntarily submitted it. The seller signed the contract after the buyer had it and submitted it.

                      This was not a scenario where a seller shoved a pre filled in boutique contract with unheard of or illegal terms under a buyer's nose and told him to sign immediately or else.

                      No coercion. No duress. No accident. No mistake of law. No mistake of fact. Nothing illegal. The buyer knew what he was agreeing to and did so voluntarily.

        • lulzenberg on 05/03/2026 - 11:16

          We have bought 2 properties and sold 1 in QLD in the last 3 years, the practice has been: you can offer any amount up to 10% as a deposit, but what ever you offer as the deposit, you have to pay that by the contracted date - you don't get to only pay a small portion then pay the rest after the date that is in the contract. In the market where we are, most sellers will go with the person who offers the highest deposit as that shows they are serious. Maybe it is different in different areas of QLD, but not uncommon here in the last few years at least for people to put an offer in with a small deposit of $1000 on multiple properties, they get multiple acceptances and then they pick one and forgo the deposits on the other ones, so now some sellers are taking slightly smaller offers when the deposits are the max of 10% as they dont want to deal with people who are looking at multiple properties.

  • Jaduqimon on 26/02/2026 - 13:06
    +3

    did the same buyer buy it again for 829k? if so, thats a win for him

    edit: nvm, says a different buyer

    • neil on 26/02/2026 - 13:12

      Yeah, different buyer. The buyer was trying to force the seller to sell and would have sold for the $985k if they lost. Maybe there was a downturn in QLD real estate between 2024 and 2025?

    • otter01 on 26/02/2026 - 14:10
      +4

      Sold to a family member. Wasn't a real loss.

      • neil on 26/02/2026 - 14:30
        +2

        How do you know it was sold to a family member?

        • Gotchas on 26/02/2026 - 14:45
          -2

          Because you can also claim back the difference in sale price

          • studentl0an on 26/02/2026 - 14:58

            @Gotchas: Capital gains tax and stamp duty exist.

            • Gotchas on 26/02/2026 - 15:37

              @studentl0an: Not if it’s principle place of residence - and sold to a first home buyer who have stamp duty concessions

              • sam-1966 on 26/02/2026 - 17:07

                @Gotchas:

                @studentl0an: Not if it’s principle place of residence - and sold to a first home buyer who have stamp duty concessions

                Do they still get the concessions at that price? I thought it was lower.

                • Gotchas on 26/02/2026 - 17:17

                  @sam-1966: Cuts out at 1 million so surprised they didn’t sell under 800k which is fully exempt - maybe market value valuations

                  Crickets from above user student loan - ozbargains resident legislative council

        • Lottery Winner on 26/02/2026 - 15:49
          +1

          Land titles search

  • foursaken on 26/02/2026 - 13:10
    +24

    It's rough, but ffs if you sign a contract and breach the contract then whatever happens next is on you.

    • Kail on 26/02/2026 - 13:14
      +23

      I think the seller is a massive AH, but you are correct here.

      Buyer signed on the 22nd so should have planned to visit the bank on the 23rd morning, which was a weekday so no excuse for not being able to get there.
      Instead they didn't send the deposit through until the 25th, well after it was due.

      What a huge amount of money to lose on such a lesson though.

      • Scythic on 27/02/2026 - 21:53
        +4

        Yeah, I remember my first house settlement experience. As soon as I noticed my daily limit and the deadline for paying deposit, I went straight to the bank during my lunchbreak and queued 30 minutes to speak to someone and have them helped me increase the daily limit to over 100K. Priority!

      • furyou on 01/03/2026 - 00:08

        sounds like a nice scam, sell houses some hours b4 a streak of pub hols…

        • Muppet Detector on 02/03/2026 - 15:42

          Buyer submitted the contract on a Monday 22/1/24. Contract on foot on 23/1/24.

          The only public holiday was Friday 26/1/24, three days after the deposit was due.

          The next public holiday in qld was Good Friday, 29/3/24.

          Hardly a few hours before a slew of public holidays.

          Remember buyer initiated this contract. He submitted it first. Had the Aust Day holiday on 26/1/24 been of concern, he could have waited to submit until Monday 29th (so two months until next public holiday), or negotiated different contract terms before he signed and submitted it.

    • ForkSnorter on 26/02/2026 - 15:12
      +27

      This article is absolute nonsense. Nobody is paying a full deposit in QLD within 1 day of the contract date.

      Typically people pay a small initial deposit on the day of the contract (or within 24 hours). Then they have typically have a cooling off period, plus a building&pest clause, and a finance clause. Then the balance (remainder) deposit is due at the expiry of the finance clause. This is typically 2 weeks after the contract was signed.

      If they are making a cash deposit with no finance clause, they typically state the date the balance deposit is due in the contract, and it is often at the end of the cooling off period. I've never heard of the entire deposit being due within 1 day.

      This must have been an aggressively written contract that was not read by the buyer or the buyer's solicitor. Typically the buyer has a solicitor who will take at least 1 day to read the contract and get back to the buyer informing him/her of when the balance deposit is due.

      • foursaken on 26/02/2026 - 15:22
        +15

        Dude signed a crazy contract, breached the deposit clause, and then admitted the breach.

        From the judgement:

        The parties accept that this term required the plaintiff to pay the deposit on 23 January 2024 and that the plaintiff’s failure to do this breached clause 2.2(1) of the contract of sale.

        Case closed.

        Completely unnecessary and unusual as you point out, but none-the-less he did it.

      • 82norm on 27/02/2026 - 14:13

        No cooling off if it was an auction. Have cheque book ready or don’t bother coming.

        • ForkSnorter on 27/02/2026 - 14:20

          If it was an auction, the article should have clarified that, as it's a very different situation. Buyer should have been prepared in that case.

      • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 02:25
        +1

        This must have been an aggressively written contract that was not read by the buyer or the buyer's solicitor.

        "The contract was in the standard form Contract for Houses and Residential Land (18th edition) approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society Inc."

        I've never heard of the entire deposit being due within 1 day.

        Now you've heard of one where the deposit was due on the day that both parties signed the contract.

        Apparently a standard form contract too, so there will be others.

        • brissg on 01/03/2026 - 20:09

          You likely haven’t bought or sold in Queensland yet. Here, every contract uses the standard form plus additional clauses, and that’s exactly why a solicitor needs to review it before you sign. When I bought my place, the property was tenanted, so my solicitor even requested the current lease to check whether any terms could affect us after settlement. The payment schedule and the amounts involved are always a key focus—not just for the solicitor, but for the mortgage broker as well.

          • Muppet Detector on 02/03/2026 - 05:09

            @brissg:

            You likely haven’t bought or sold in Queensland yet.

            I very likely have. Multiple times. Only sold one though.

            Here, every contract uses the standard form plus additional clauses, and that’s exactly why a solicitor needs to review it before you sign.

            A rigorous advocate for review by a relevant solicitor before you sign - managing the whole process, in fact, particularly for transactions as large as these. My mind still boggles that we are allowed to use conveyancers for such significant transactions.

            so my solicitor even requested the current lease to check whether any terms could affect us after settlement.

            You are preaching to the choir. I don't breathe heavily unless the legals give permission when dealing with transactions as significant as these.

            I scrutinise any contract I commit to. I have no intention of being blindsided. Whether it be purchasing a car, selling on eBay, using Aust Post or buying insurance. Most I can work out myself, but for larger transactions, I always engage the legals.

            The payment schedule and the amounts involved are always a key focus

            Critical areas, as this buyer found out.

    • prodrome on 26/02/2026 - 16:37

      Nope. Payment made over 2 days is reasonable.

      • gromit on 26/02/2026 - 18:19
        +18

        It's reasonable….. as long as you didnt sign a contract saying you had to pay it before then.

        • prodrome on 26/02/2026 - 18:55
          +6

          A lot of people wouldn't go to court over this, they'd go straight to violence.

          • gromit on 26/02/2026 - 20:57
            +7

            @prodrome: agreed, but then a lot of people also wouldn't sign a contract when they didn't intend to honour it.

            • prodrome on 26/02/2026 - 21:45
              +6

              @gromit: This is the kind of moronic contract that is normally illegal.

              • Muppet Detector on 27/02/2026 - 05:51
                +1

                @prodrome:

                This is the kind of moronic contract that is normally illegal.

                From s(10) of the court transcript

                "The contract was in the standard form Contract for Houses and Residential Land (18th edition) approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society Inc."

                Must be a lot of normally illegal contracts out there in Qld if this one was the standard form one.

                Court even looked for relief via estoppel and still found in favour of the seller. No unfair or illegal contract terms.

                If this court made an error, they can always appeal.

                • prodrome on 27/02/2026 - 14:18

                  @Muppet Detector: Yes, many lawyers are morons. More specificially, seeking to enforce a same day payment window to cheat someone out of $100k is not a ha-ha gotcha kind of move.

                  Legal or not, the seller is a thieving (profanity) who deserves nothing but misfortune. I hope they're looking over their should for the rest of their lives.

                  • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 00:19
                    +1

                    @prodrome:

                    Yes, many lawyers are morons. More specificially, seeking to enforce a same day payment window to cheat someone out of $100k is not a ha-ha gotcha kind of move.

                    I'm sure many lawyers are morons.

                    But it is literally their job to pursue the law and have it lawfully enforced.

                    The lawyer only represented their client in court because that is their job and their client employed them to seek legal remedy in the courts.

                    They are the middlemen to the courts and must do their best to make sure that the law is applied correctly to their client whether this be civil or criminal.

                    The lawyers do not make the law any more than you or I do, they simply have a better idea of what the law says, how it works and what is required for somebody to ask the court to decide on their client's concerns (both civil and criminal).

                    In fact, I am almost positive that a member of the general public cannot go to the Supreme Court without legal representation.

                    It was no gotcha moment. There was no cheating.

                    The buyer agreed to it. He knew about the due date. This was not a surprise for him. It was there in writing and he agreed to it.

                    Remember, the buyer seems to have had some kind of legal representation during the formation of this contract. Correspondence was being cc to a legal firm at least, so not sure if a real lawyer or just conveyance .

                    So, why is it their lawyer is not the moron for failing to protect their client's legal interests in all this?

                    Why is it only the lawyer asked to pursue their client's legal rights through the courts that are the morons?

                    Legal or not, the seller is a thieving (profanity) who deserves nothing but misfortune. I hope they're looking over their should for the rest of their lives.

                    And I understand your position and respect your right to have that position.

                    However, the courts don't believe the seller is a theiving (profanity).

                    But just because I understand how the law works sometimes and why it makes the decisions that it does, please don't assume that I agree with it or think it is fair.

                    In this situation, unless I had suffered quite significant loss as a result of that late payment, I personally would not have enforced this.

                    So please, don't assume I agree with what the seller has done here (although I don't know if they did suffer some loss or if just being an arse).

                    At the end of the day, the buyer agreed to those terms. He did not claim anything illegal, or coercion, duress or even a mistake of law or fact happened.

                    He did not attempt to negotiate those terms or change them. He knew they were there (or at least claimed he did) and agreed to sign the legal contract anyway.

                    Even he agreed the terms were legal and said so in that court hearing. Then the court agreed.

                    As terrible as this is, it is not the seller's, lawyers or courts fault.

                    The buyer had many opportunities to prevent this.

                    From this, all of us (including the buyer), can hopefully learn from what this buyer has done and do our best to not do what he did (again) and take steps the best we can to protect ourselves from this happening to us or somebody we care about.

            • Rick Sanchez on 27/02/2026 - 10:27
              +2

              @gromit: You'd be surprised how many people read contracts. And that's not considering that 44% of Australian adults are considered as low literacy

              • gromit on 27/02/2026 - 11:00
                +3

                @Rick Sanchez: personally I read every contract in detail, including terms and conditions in things like insurance. from the threads we see constantly on here and in the news I think most people do not read contracts carefully or don't consider that the terms will be applied to them.

                • Rick Sanchez on 27/02/2026 - 11:15
                  +3

                  @gromit: Same, although I've gotten sloppy with the smaller stuff.
                  Having said that, 44% won't even understand them if they try read it. Heck I work with contracts, and still will find the clause that's extremely hard to understand how it would be applied.

              • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 02:36

                @Rick Sanchez:

                You'd be surprised how many people read contracts.

                Hah! This court is riddled with people saying "nobody reads all those contracts" and goes onto admit they don't as well.

                I was surprised to learn how many people don't know when they are entering contracts or what a contract actually is (even the very basics).

          • Muppet Detector on 27/02/2026 - 03:32
            +4

            @prodrome:

            A lot of people wouldn't go to court over this, they'd go straight to violence.

            So, commit a criminal offence and still owe the $100,000?

            • prodrome on 27/02/2026 - 05:39
              +6

              @Muppet Detector: People generally don't take it well when they're cheated out of $100,000

              • Muppet Detector on 27/02/2026 - 05:46
                -1

                @prodrome: Well, they weren't cheated out of the money. He knew he owed it, he just didn't expect that someone would stick so strictly to the contract terms.

                I agree that it is a terrible thing to have happened (I have a horror story of my own where I came out worse for wear just because "that's how the law works. - there's a reason why they say the law is an ass).

                The reality here is that even the courts wouldn't apply estoppel and held firm on the contract terms.

                I couldn't have done it, but I guess that's why we have written contracts in the first place.

                A lot of people knew about this term. Well, the buyer and his conveyancor, so it's not like it was a surprise.

                Wait till you read where the court also ordered that the buyer pay interest on the late payment and awarded court costs to the seller.

            • Rick Sanchez on 27/02/2026 - 10:33
              +6

              @Muppet Detector: There's a point of no return there. Obviously $100k is not it for you, it is for a lot of people.
              People who do this shit, even if "legal", deserve not to sleep at night.
              We can only hope they get what's coming to them.

              • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 00:31

                @Rick Sanchez:

                There's a point of no return there. Obviously $100k is not it for you, it is for a lot of people.

                May I please ask what you mean by this? I am hoping that I have misunderstood what you do mean, so am respectfully, seeking to clarify.

              • suzta on 28/02/2026 - 00:48

                @Rick Sanchez: I contract is a bargain, a deal, a promise. The buyer promised to pay on the 23rd. They didn't follow through on what they promised. FAFO.

                It's stated above that the contract was the standard form contract. It's used by everyone. It would have been developed by the Law Society & the real estate body precisely so everyone knew the terms that would apply. It wasn't bespoke it was bog standard.

                Don't sign a contract that says you agree to pay on the 23rd if you haven't checked out whether you can actually get & deliver the money on the 23rd. You're an adult. Stop whinging.

              • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 00:52

                @Rick Sanchez:

                People who do this shit, even if "legal", deserve not to sleep at night.

                In my experience, they seem to go about life just fine.

                We can only hope they get what's coming to them.

                Yeah, again in my experience, if it does, it takes a fkn long time (so far) unless they're religious and God eventually sorts them out I suppose.

                One of our children was seriously ill and in hospital a long way from home for ten weeks. As a result, we were up near her and our other children were billeted out within their community so they could continue school etc.

                As a result, our PPOR was vacant.

                A family of four moved into our house, changed the locks and would not move out. We were even denied entry to collect any of our belongings.

                As a result, we were forced to rent another house, furnish it and buy even basic things like clothes and stuff for the kids and us, for our family to live in as well as continuing to pay our mortgage.

                These people had no lease, no permission, paid no rent or no bond.

                They stayed there for five months before they moved out. But this was not when the law forced them to move/returned lawful possession to us, that's just when they voluntarily left.

                So yeah, I have first hand knowledge that the law is an ass and there isn't much about it that seems very fair.

                Both those people worked for Centrelink, they went to church every Sunday and their children were enrolled in Catholic school.

                But you know what? Nobody (as in their employer, school or church) cared. Just had to let the law take its sweet time to work it out.

                Following that, I went to law school to try and learn how to protect myself from that happening again and to try and understand why the law works the way it does.

                Just because I have a better understanding of why or how the law works the way it does, does not mean I agree with it.

                And believe me, whilst the law can be an ass, there are many, many people in this world who are even worse.

                At least this seller only exercised his legal rights, do you know how many (profanity) out there don't give a damn about even that?

                • p1 ama on 03/03/2026 - 00:31

                  @Muppet Detector:

                  As a result, our PPOR was vacant. A family of four moved into our house, changed the locks and would not move out. We were even denied entry to collect any of our belongings.

                  You're telling me that you basically went on a holiday, and you came back to a bunch of strangers who you've never met before living in your house. Sorry, but that's just a ridiculous story.

                  Following that, I went to law school to try and learn how to protect myself from that happening again and to try and understand why the law works the way it does.

                  So you spent 4-5 years at university, sitting quite gruelling assessments and exams in order to learn about what you should do if a bunch of random people ever showed up to your house and started living there again?

        • ColtNoir on 27/02/2026 - 11:12
          +5

          Not all contract clauses are legal though. They could’ve written ‘must be paid in person while wearing a mankini’ doesn’t make it legal nor reasonable. Being reasonable is a huge part of our laws here.

          Deposits are meant to protect the seller so they don’t lose money, they didn’t lose anything here. Frankly I’d be surprised if lawyers weren’t already sending subpoenas for contact between the second buyer and seller. This smells of fraud.

          • Muppet Detector on 28/02/2026 - 00:35
            -2

            @ColtNoir:

            Not all contract clauses are legal though.

            This is true.

            Deposits are meant to protect the seller so they don’t lose money,

            This isn't true.

            they didn’t lose anything here.

            I missed where this was mentioned? How do you know this?

            • ColtNoir on 01/03/2026 - 18:50

              @Muppet Detector: Simple math. They could've continued with the deal as they received the whole deposit, just late. They chose to take the cash and sell it to a family member.

    • boretentsu on 28/02/2026 - 01:10

      Not sure how it's done today but it used to be deliver bank cheque on contract exchange (NSW).

      None of this drip feed of deposit. That's the risk as you are technically in breach from the get go if you sign and haven't paid the full deposit.

      Furthermore, the vendor can also sue for the price difference between the original contract and the second sale if there was a loss of which there was. So that's like roughly the $985k - 98.5k - $829k = $57.5k.

      As bad as the original purchasers situation is, it's not even the worst outcome.

    • supersabroso on 27/02/2026 - 09:25
      +5

      No, that's not right. It's not like he couldn't come up with the deposit for a week or two. People should be able to trust the standard contract of sale terms. They shouldn't need a fine tooth comb to weed out all the ridiculous conditions like this. The contract is for the sale of a house, not technical deadlines to scam $100k off someone and end up with no house.

      • Muppet Detector on 01/03/2026 - 03:05

        It was the buyer who submitted the contract and signed it before giving it to the seller.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 26/02/2026 - 13:15
    +5

    Lionel Hutz: But I ask you, what is a contract? Webster's defines it as "an agreement under the law which is unbreakable". "Which is UNbreakable"!

    Simpsons memes aside, bit of a dick move from the seller.

  • skid on 26/02/2026 - 13:17
    +16

    The yahoo article said that the buyer says he didn’t have enough time to go into the branch that day.

    His time was worth more than $98k

    • Rick Sanchez on 27/02/2026 - 10:37

      Have you bought a house? On top of your normal worries you gotta think about selling your own place, moving out, figuring out things with your broker. Maybe you're on top of your game all the time, but it's a lot for most people .

      • derrida derider on 27/02/2026 - 11:55
        +9

        Man I might get careless with a contract for an old used car, but I would be an absolute stickler for detail when there is $985,000 of my money involved. It would have taken the outbreak of WW3 or a massive tsunami that swallowed Brisbane to stop me from being "too busy" to go to the bank that very day, as the contract I just signed clearly needed me to. Not that I would have signed such a contract in the first place.

        Yeah the seller is a lowlife, but the buyer is an idiot; a fool and his money are easily parted.

      • skid on 27/02/2026 - 12:05
        +7

        Before putting in the offer, I read the contract of sale. Right after the agent called me saying that my offer had been accepted, I hurriedly arranged a conveyancer and refreshed my pre-approval with the bank. I confirmed my offer with the agent. Then I had the conveyancer read through the contract of sale and point out anything that was not normal. Before signing, I understood the deposit amount and where to transfer it to. I took a day off work and I drew a bank cheque in person at the bank for the initial deposit and arranged a RTGS for the 10%. I confirmed that the vendor's agent had received the funds. I took buying a place seriously, not like ordering from an app.

        • Rick Sanchez on 27/02/2026 - 13:00
          +6

          Obviously you took the right approach - but why does it have to be a minefield?
          At the end it ends up punishing those in a more unfortunate position (eg immigrant, uneducated, under higher pressures, in a rush to find a house to move into, have a disability etc). It doesn't affect those with the means who have the luxury of having been educated and knowing how to navigate the Australian systems, can simply take time off work, or can readily obtain lawyer advice.

          • skid on 27/02/2026 - 13:29

            @Rick Sanchez: It's a minefield for everyone except the ones that could pay cash upfront.

            One thing that caught me offguard was that my pre-approved amount had gone down since I got it initially. The bank said it was due to economic risk etc. Luckily my offer was still within the new pre-approved amount.

            • Rick Sanchez on 27/02/2026 - 20:13

              @skid: What baffles me is that I didn't think this was something to be concerned about.
              The deposit is 1/10 of the other conditions of sale that can screw you. You had a structural defects clause, and the inspector found the roof is sagging? They'll argue battens and roof cover aren't structural items. Soakwells blocked or not working? Sorry, also not structural.
              Something does get found? Seller can choose to just cancel the sale rather than fix it.

              • skid on 27/02/2026 - 23:21

                @Rick Sanchez: Structural defects, water damage, termites all have to be found in the cooling off period. After the cooling off period, those problems are the buyers problem. The building inspections are next to useless, but that's another topic.

                The other thing is that at the end of the settlement period, you have a chance to do the final inspection, but the only problems that you can raise are changes in condition from the time that you signed. Buyers are not going to realistically record down the condition at the time of signing… so the vendor/agent says "that's how it was when you signed"

                One other thing I remember that happened to me was after making an offer, the agent says "hey, we have another buyer who has offered $40k more. Will you match that?" Just got ripped $40k before signing.

  • Wiadro on 26/02/2026 - 13:17
    +11

    Imagine cancelling a sale and then waiting 9 months to sell again and selling for less.

    Seller must’ve been low IQ.

    • Jaduqimon on 26/02/2026 - 13:34
      +7

      But if he invested that 98k into NVDA ,he would actually have had 9000 IQ

    • derrida derider on 27/02/2026 - 13:10
      +1

      Sold it to a family member.

      It may have been "mate's rates", or even a sham sale (unbeknown to the court) to inflate the loss for the upcoming court case. But most likely, given the buyer's other mistakes, the initial offer was way over market price.

    • Scythic on 27/02/2026 - 21:56
      +1

      Pocketed 98K is already more profitable than the commission itself.

    • bcYield on 01/03/2026 - 13:46

      Maybe they had been busy with the court callings for the 9 months?

  • plmko on 26/02/2026 - 13:21
    +13

    I suppose this is why you have a conveyancer……

    Absolutely insane to sign a contract with a hardline clause. I normally see ones where there's interest and fees for late payment within a reasonable timeframe.

    • supersabroso on 27/02/2026 - 09:27
      +8

      Yeah this is so strange. If you fail to meet a deadline for a deposit then they take your previous deposit, not the deposit that you failed to pay. Eg. In NSW, you have 2 weeks to come up with a 10% deposit after signing the 0.25% deposit. If the seller cancels because you weren't able to come up with the 10% deposit on time, they only get to keep your 0.25% deposit, not your 10% deposit! If they have your 10% deposit then obviously they can't cancel or they have to return your 10% deposit and only keep 0.25%.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join