Following
an unconditional property purchase where later the boundaries were disputed,
cancellation was refused because title to the land was marked: “limited as to
parcels”. The Asian purchaser of a
residential property in Dunedin was liable for damages of $53,900 after failing
to complete the sale.
The High Court was told Hu Jian Li
committed in May 2013 to buying a property at nine Brunel Street, Mornington
for $232,000. Before settlement there
were questions over where the boundaries lay.
It appeared the legal boundary ran through the house itself. Attempts to cancel the contract failed. The electronic register for land titles
recorded the property “limited as to parcels”.
This meant there is no state guarantee over the property’s dimensions. Much of the land in early-settled areas of major
New Zealand cities is “limited as to parcels”.
No adequate survey was completed before the land was brought within the
current land title register. In these
cases, the state guarantees that the owner named on the register is the true
owner of the land, but there is no guarantee as to the boundaries.
Justice Gendall said a limitation as to
parcels did not go to the fundamental question of who is the true owner and
was not grounds to cancel an unconditional contract. The purchaser was liable to pay damages of
$53,900 (being the loss on resale when the vendors sold to another buyer) less
the $23,200 deposit paid earlier; a net figure of $30,700 damages payable for
breach of contract.
Forde
v. Li – High Court (18.02.16)
16.032