Waiving the Bond Clause to Keep a Sale Alive: Risk Versus Reward

Categories

Property

Waiving the Bond Clause to Keep a Sale Alive: Risk Versus Reward

by | Aug 27, 2024

“This sale agreement is no more! It has ceased to be! This is an EX-sale!” (With apologies to Monty Python)

A “bond clause” – standard in most property sale agreements – typically provides that the whole sale depends on the buyer obtaining a mortgage bond by a specified date. If the deadline comes and goes without a bond being granted, the sale lapses and the buyer is entitled to get their deposit back.

Most agreements also provide that the bond clause is there for the sole benefit of the buyer, who is thus entitled to waive it, i.e. to tell the seller “I no longer need a bond and I’ll pay the purchase price in cash so the sale can proceed.”

There’s both risk and reward in that

The rewards in such a situation are obvious – both buyer and seller benefit from the sale going through.

But there’s also a risk factor if the “waiver” is open to doubt, as a recent SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) fight illustrates.

“The whole sale agreement has lapsed, I want my R1m deposit back”

Just before the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown struck and disrupted everything (with a Deeds Office closure to top it all), the buyer bought a house for his daughter and her family for R4.95m. He paid a R1m deposit into a trust account and undertook to pay the balance on transfer. The sale agreement included a standard bond clause, worded along the lines set out above.

The buyer applied for a bond and was eventually granted one. But, critically, this only happened after expiry of the deadline set out in the bond clause. Meanwhile – and here we come to the nub of this dispute – a conveyancing secretary wrote an email advising that “…we have spoken to the purchaser and the purchaser advised that he will make payment of the full purchase price… He will be buying the property cash.” That “waiver email”, the seller would later argue, was the buyer waiving the benefit of the bond clause through the agency of the conveyancer.

  • Many delays and emails later – caused largely it seems by the lockdown – the daughter and her family were given early occupation as they were keen to get going with repairs, alterations and landscaping. That happy process all came to a screeching halt when an architect discovered that there were no plans for parts of the building and that it was thus illegal. The daughter returned the keys, and her father demanded a refund of his deposit.
  • The seller refused, claiming that the buyer had both waived his right to rely on the bond clause and repudiated (renounced) the sale. His deposit would therefore be retained to cover the seller’s damages claim against him.
  • The buyer retorted that he had never waived his rights under the bond clause, and that the whole sale was null and void from midnight on the date of expiry of the bond clause deadline. That, argued the buyer, entitled him to the return of his R1m deposit.
Waiver and the law

Battle lines drawn, the first round went to the buyer: the High Court agreed that the sale had lapsed and ordered that he be repaid his R1m.

Round two was no better for the seller. The SCA, refusing his application to appeal against the repayment order, held that there is a factual presumption against waiver in our law. The onus was therefore on the seller to prove that the buyer had waived his rights to the bond clause. He needed to provide “clear proof” of a “valid and unequivocal waiver” showing that “[the buyer] was aware of those rights, intended to waive them and did do so”. The Court said he had failed to prove this.

Moreover, the agreement required (as is standard) “that any waiver of any right arising from or in connection to the agreement be in writing and signed by the party to the agreement.” No proof of that here, held the Court. And when it came to the seller’s suggestion that the conveyancer had acted as the buyer’s agent in writing the disputed “waiver” email, the Court held that the seller had failed to prove that the conveyancer “was duly authorised to waive those rights, of which [the buyer] was fully aware, and that [the conveyancer] knew all the relevant facts, was aware of those rights and intended to waive them.”

The end result: There was no need to argue over the lack of building plans. The sale died when the bond clause deadline expired. It was, as Monty Python might have put it, deceased, expired, and bereft of life. The buyer gets his R1m back.

Remember: A lot is at stake in property sales, and it’s easy to put a foot wrong. Speak to us before you sign anything!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Our Most Recent Articles

Would you like to save time? Consider subscribing to our monthly newsletter here.

Bodies Corporate and HOAs: Apply Your Rules With Common Sense, or Else

Bodies Corporate and HOAs: Apply Your Rules With Common Sense, or Else

The administrators of residential complexes tread a fine line. They must implement and enforce conduct rules for the good of the complex as a whole, but without unjustly impinging on the constitutional rights of individuals.
A recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision, granting a sight-impaired owner a limited right to exclusive use of a section of common area for his washing machine, has brought this balancing act into sharp focus. We discuss the reasoning behind that outcome, with some suggestions on how bodies corporate and homeowners’ associations should approach this sort of situation in future.

Bad Manager or Workplace Bully? Where the Law Draws the Line

Bad Manager or Workplace Bully? Where the Law Draws the Line

Not every difficult manager is a workplace bully, and not every uncomfortable workplace is an unlawful one. But where exactly does the law draw the line?
A 2023 Labour Court judgment tackles that question head-on, with important lessons for both employers and employees. If you’ve ever wondered whether a harassment claim would succeed against your employer, or whether your management style exposes your business to legal risk, the answer may surprise you.

She Fell Out of a Safari Vehicle: When Disclaimers Fail

She Fell Out of a Safari Vehicle: When Disclaimers Fail

,

Think a disclaimer will protect your business from liability? Not so fast. Our courts have made it clear that a disclaimer is only enforceable where consent is properly obtained, risks are clearly disclosed, and the wording is specific enough to cover the conduct in question.
These principles matter for businesses operating in high-risk environments, and for consumers who may assume they have signed away more rights than they actually have. A case brought by a woman who fell from her safari vehicle in Botswana illustrates this point.