|
Hong Kong Law Reform Commission |
2.1 As we have seen in the preceding chapter, there is insufficient
protection for private individuals buying residential units in the second-hand
market. Moreover, the present law is deficient in that it provides for very
few, if any, positive duties on the vendor to provide particulars of the
property he offers to sell. Without such positive obligations, it is difficult
to establish liability for false or misleading property
descriptions.
2.2 We take the view that the vendor should have a
positive duty to supply prospective purchasers with some basic property
particulars well before a preliminary agreement is entered into. Property
information provided at an early stage can assist prospective purchasers in
making informed decisions. What is more, such positive disclosure requirements
can assist the purchaser in any future claims against the vendor for misleading
or false representations.
2.3 Because of the lack of positive disclosure requirements upon
vendors the sub-committee put forward the idea of a Vendor's Information Form
(VIF) in the consultation paper. The VIF would be completed by the vendor and
would contain various particulars about the unit he offers for sale in the
second-hand market. A vendor would have to make the VIF available when his unit
is put on the market for sale, whether through an estate agent or not. In other
words, a VIF would be prepared long before a potential purchaser is identified,
and in any event before the signing of any preliminary
agreement.
2.4 The VIF is not a new idea. The VIF or its equivalent has
either been proposed or is already in place in a number of overseas
jurisdictions. The following are examples.
2.5 A working party of the Law Society of England and Wales (the
Working Party) recommended as part of its proposals for conveyancing reform the
introduction of a Legal Information Form. The Legal Information Form is to be
supplied by the seller's solicitor to the seller's agent setting out in plain
English "the necessary information which an informed buyer would wish to have
before making an offer for the
property".[14]
2.6 The Legal
Information Form is to be prepared by the seller's solicitors and contains basic
information about the property, including the type of ownership, lease terms,
expenses, repairs, management, planning consent and other general matters
relating to disputes and notices. Prospective buyers can view the Legal
Information Form (as part of the seller's information pack) either at the
selling agent's office or the office of the seller's
solicitors.[15]
2.7 In Idaho, the Property Condition Disclosure Act
(chapter 25)[16] provides that
for each transfer of residential real property, on or after 1 July 1994, the
transferor must complete a "seller property disclosure form". The property
disclosure form constitutes a statement of the condition of the property and of
information concerning the property actually known by the
transferor.[17] It is not a
warranty of any kind by the transferor or his
agent.[18] It is not a substitute
for any inspections.[19] The
transferor must deliver a signed and dated copy of the completed disclosure form
to each prospective transferee or his agent within 10 days of the transferor's
acceptance of the transferee's
offer.[20] The Idaho seller
property disclosure form covers such information as appliances and services
systems included in the sale, problems with basement water, foundations, roof
condition, well, septic system, plumbing, drainage, electrical, heating,
conditions that may affect clear title (such as encroachments, easements, zoning
violations, lot line disputes), knowledge of any hazardous materials or pest
infestations, and any substantial additions or alterations without a building
permit.
2.8 In Virginia, the Residential Property Disclosure Act (chapter
27),[21] which came into effect on 1
July 1993, applies to sales of residential real property consisting of not less
than one nor more than four dwelling units, whether or not with the assistance
of a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Under the Act, the owner is
required to furnish to a purchaser either:
a) a residential property disclaimer statement, stating that he makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the property and the purchaser will be receiving the property "as is", that is, with all the defects which may exist except as otherwise provided in the purchase contract, or
b) a residential property disclosure statement.
2.9 The
residential property disclosure statement contains representations by the owner
and not those by the broker or salesperson. The disclosure and disclaimer forms
make no representations with respect to any matters which may pertain to parcels
adjacent to the subject parcel. The owner must deliver to the purchaser the
disclosure or disclaimer form prior to the acceptance of a real estate purchase
contract. The owner is not liable for any error in the information not within
his actual knowledge or which was based on information provided by public
agencies, or if he reasonably believed the information to be correct and where
he was not grossly negligent in obtaining the information from a third party and
transmitting it. At or before settlement, the owner must disclose any material
change in the physical condition of the property or certify that the condition
of the property is substantially the same as it was when the disclosure form was
provided.
2.10 The Virginia residential property disclosure statement
includes information on the basement, roof, fireplace/chimney, plumbing system,
septic/sewer system, water supply, heating system, air-conditioning system,
electric system, insulation, exterior drainage, wood-destroying organisms,
etc.
2.11 In Ontario, Rule 11.3 of the Code of Ethics of the Real Estate
Council of Ontario provides:
"A Member representing a Seller of Residential Property should consider requesting that the Seller complete and sign a Vendor Property Information Statement and should attach a copy to the Agreement or provide in the Agreement, or otherwise, in writing to the Parties, a statement that the Seller refused or was unable to complete the Statement."[22]
2.12 The
Seller Property Information Statement is not a statutory
form,[23] but is prescribed by the
Ontario Real Estate Association for use by real estate brokers and salespersons.
It covers matters such as interest in the property by other parties, plan of
survey, water sources, water systems, problems in relation to quantity and
quality of well water, septic systems, zoning and re-zoning, easements,
restrictive covenants, local levies or unusual taxes being charged or
contemplated, notices or claims affecting the property from any person or public
body, public projects planned for the immediate area, and the approximate age of
the property.
2.13 These examples of overseas practice suggest that there can be
four approaches to imposing a duty of positive disclosure on vendors. The first
approach is to provide for a VIF on a purely voluntary basis. An example is the
Legal Information Form proposed by the English Law Society. The second
alternative is a compulsory VIF backed by legislation. This is the approach
adopted by the state of Idaho in the USA.
2.14 The third approach can be
described as a flexible statutory approach, and is the one followed in the state
of Virginia in the USA. Under the Virginia Residential Property Disclosure Act,
the owner can furnish to a purchaser either a residential property disclaimer
statement or a residential property disclosure statement. The residential
property disclaimer statement states that the owner makes no representations or
warranties as to the condition of the property and the purchaser would be
receiving the property "as is".
2.15 The fourth approach is to introduce
a code of practice for estate agents, as is used in Ontario. Under rule 11 of
the Code of Ethics of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, a member (ie a real
estate broker or salesperson) should consider requesting the seller to complete
and sign a Seller Property Information Statement. If the seller refuses, or is
unable, to complete the statement, that fact should be stated in the agreement.
The statement is not a statutory form but is only part of a code of practice
prescribed for real estate brokers and salespersons.
2.16 The responses to the consultation paper show a fairly divided
view as to whether a VIF should be introduced for completed flats in the
second-hand market. Those who were in favour of a VIF considered that such a
proposal would generally enhance consumer rights by imposing upon vendors the
positive responsibility to disclose useful sales information before the signing
of the PSAP. One respondent, while supporting the introduction of a VIF,
expressed concern over the difficulty that owners of older buildings might face
in supplying some of the property information in the VIF. Another respondent
supported the VIF proposals but considered that some practical difficulties
(such as providing information related to saleable area) should be resolved
before implementing the proposals.
2.17 The main argument advanced by
those against the VIF proposals was that the proposals would increase
transaction time and costs. Property owners might not necessarily possess
sufficient knowledge to complete the VIF, or they might find it difficult to
obtain the property particulars necessary for completion of the VIF. There was
further concern that the introduction of a VIF might over-regulate the sale of
completed units in the second-hand market.
2.18 A VIF will assist purchasers in making more informed decisions.
The number of disputed sales will be reduced.
2.19 The VIF contains the vendor's representations as to particulars
of the units. Its contents will be of assistance to purchasers in future
litigation arising from misleading or false property descriptions. A vendor
might refuse to fill in some items in the VIF without some form of legal
compulsion (an issue which we shall address later in this chapter). However,
the fact that there are gaps in the VIF will put prospective purchasers on
notice.
2.20 The VIF should be a user-friendly summary of the necessary
information in plain language.[24]
Property particulars taking the form of a summary in plain language will be of
great assistance to prospective purchasers. At present, most property
particulars are contained in complicated legal documents not readily
intelligible to lay persons. Purchasers have to rely on their solicitors or the
conveyancing clerk to explain to them their rights and obligations under the
title documents. However, solicitors in Hong Kong are normally involved only
when the purchaser has already signed a preliminary agreement.
2.21 One respondent commented that a VIF would encourage property
owners to remove any existing unauthorised building work prior to marketing
their flats. The VIF was also seen as a deterrent to property owners from
undertaking unauthorised building work. If a property owner is required to
disclose in the VIF information on any structural alterations, he is likely to
have second thoughts before erecting any unauthorised structures in his unit in
the first instance. The VIF would therefore serve to better protect the
prospective buyer’s rights and enhance consumer protection.
2.22 The majority of those respondents who opposed the idea of a VIF
argued that the preparation of a VIF may involve additional costs and an added
burden to the vendor.
2.23 It is, in our view, a misconception to
perceive the VIF as being an expensive and time-consuming scheme. As it is
necessary to prepare only one original of the VIF, the costs of its preparation
should be but a small percentage of the overall transaction costs. It should
not be too time-consuming to find out the necessary information for the VIF, as
most of the information required will be readily available at the various
registration sources. Modern technology has made it easier than before to
conduct searches for registered property information. The Rating and Valuation
Department, for example, has introduced an Info-Hotline Service on Property Age
and Floor Area. Anyone can now obtain by telephone the saleable area of any
unit included in that system. The Info-Hotline Service now contains the saleable
areas of 90 percent of all residential properties in Hong
Kong.[25] Furthermore, our proposal
below for a centralised property information system, if implemented, should
greatly reduce the costs and time incurred in searching for the information
required for filling in a VIF.
2.24 Some respondents also suggested
that the VIF might slow down transactions. This may be the case where estate
agents come knocking at a vendor's door to advise him of a ready potential
buyer. In such cases, the negotiation cannot proceed before the VIF is
prepared. We note this concern but consider that any possible delay to a
transaction may in fact give the vendor and the purchaser more time to think
clearly about the transaction.
2.25 Concern was expressed to us during consultation that the
introduction of a VIF might over-regulate the sale of completed units in the
second-hand market. We do not agree that the VIF will over-regulate the
second-hand market. The Estate Agents Ordinance (Cap 511) already contains
requirements for estate agents to provide certain basic information on the
property. Whilst Cap 511 places on the estate agent the primary responsibility
for providing particulars of the property, the proposed VIF transfers that
responsibility to the vendor. We consider that the vendor, rather than the
estate agent, should have the primary positive duty to disclose property
particulars. As pointed out above, without that positive obligation on the
vendor, it is difficult for the purchaser to establish liability for false or
misleading property descriptions made by the vendor. It should be borne in mind
that the positive disclosure duty on the vendor does not in any way preclude him
from completing the VIF with the assistance of the estate agent. Moreover, the
property particulars in the proposed VIF are not difficult to provide and they
are helpful to purchasers in making informed decisions.
2.26 There is an argument that purchasers of second-hand completed
units can view and inspect those properties and that they buy them on an
“as is” basis. As such, the purchaser should be aware of his
responsibility to gather sufficient information about the property before
entering into a contract, rather than solely relying on the vendor (through the
VIF).
2.27 In practice, however, many purchasers do not have an
opportunity to view the unit in any great detail before committing themselves.
Furthermore, the fact that purchasers have to buy the properties on an “as
is” basis means that they should obtain as much property information as
possible and at the earliest possible opportunity before committing themselves
to a preliminary agreement. The VIF is not intended to be a substitute for
physical inspection of the property. As can be seen later, we recommend that
the VIF should contain warning clauses which, among other things, advise the
purchaser that the state of repair and physical condition is not given and he
should inspect the property. Hence, we do not consider there is any great
likelihood of purchasers solely relying on the vendor.
2.28 On balance,
we consider that the advantages of the VIF outweigh its disadvantages. Having
decided that a VIF is desirable, the next issue is what its contents should
be.
2.29 In our view, the VIF should provide more information than must
currently be provided by estate agents under the Estate Agents Practice (General
Duties and Hong Kong Residential Properties) Regulation, which we set out in the
previous chapter. The VIF should contain the information specified under
section 36(2)(a) to (g) of the Estate Agents Ordinance (Cap 511). This is the
minimum information required by purchasers in reaching their decision to buy.
We consider that vendors of second-hand completed units should be responsible
for supplying this information in the VIF. We also consider that the proposed
VIF should include details of the saleable area. In addition, we believe that a
number of other categories of information should be included, most of which are
reflected in the Law Society of England and Wales’ proposed Legal
Information Form (LIF).[26]
2.30 A VIF should contain warning clauses to the effect that, among
other things:[27]
2.32 The type of ownership (that is to say, whether leasehold or
freehold) is not important as land in Hong Kong is always leasehold. Hence, we
take the view that the type of ownership should be omitted from the proposed
VIF.
2.33 Most rights of way exist over common areas and so do not affect
the exclusive occupation of flats. Moreover, the average vendor is not in a
position to tell by himself whether or not there are rights of way.
Accordingly, we do not think rights of way should be included in the proposed
VIF.
2.34 It should not be difficult for a vendor to state the
availability of services such as water (fresh/sea), drainage, gas (what kind)
and electricity. We consider that the availability of services known to a
vendor should be included in the proposed VIF.
2.35 We consider that it will suffice to disclose the management
fees for the current month in the proposed VIF. The Legal Information Form
(LIF) proposed by the Law Society of England and Wales, by contrast, requires
the disclosure of the service charges (which are commonly called management fees
in Hong Kong) for the last three
years.[31] Purchasers are
interested in the monthly amount of management fees. As management fees do not
change significantly from year to year, purchasers will obtain sufficient
indication of the management fees by reference to the amount currently paid each
month.
2.36 Furniture and fittings are not essential items for disclosure.
The vendor and the purchaser can always negotiate what furniture and fittings
should be included in the sale. It is already the current practice to include a
list of furniture and fittings in the preliminary agreement.
2.37 We
consider that furniture and fittings should be left out of the proposed VIF as
they will be listed in the preliminary agreement in any event.
2.38 The amount of Government rent in some cases is three percent of
the rateable value of the property and can be a large sum. Vendors should have
no difficulty in disclosing the amount of Government rent as its amount can
easily be ascertained from the demand note. The proposed VIF should state
the amount of Government rent as far as it is possible.
2.39 The LIF states that the purchaser must bear his proportion of
the insurance premium covering the whole
building.[34] The last annual
charge for insurance has to be
stated.[35] In Hong Kong, the
insurance premium for the whole block is usually covered by the management fees.
The management fees are a more relevant item for disclosure than the buyer's
share of expenses. We therefore take the view that management fees but not
other expenses such as insurance premiums should be included in the proposed
VIF.
2.40 This item refers to any plans for major future expenditure known
to the vendor. It would seem that this item has already been covered by the
vendor's statement under the Estate Agents Ordinance. A vendor can, however,
refuse to fill in the vendor's statement. The estate agent will discharge his
duty by certifying that he has duly advised the vendor to complete the statement
but in vain.[37]
2.41 We
take the view that if a commitment has been made to pay certain expenditure, the
vendor should be obliged to disclose that fact. If, however, the expenditure is
merely a possibility, the vendor need not disclose it. We consider that any
notice received by the vendor from the Government, the management office, or any
relevant authority of expenditure requiring contribution from the owners should
be disclosed in the proposed VIF.
2.42 The rights of entry for repair are normally covered by the Deed
of Mutual Covenant. The existence of such rights is unlikely to have any
significant effect on the price of the property. We consider that rights of
entry for repair should be left out of the proposed VIF.
2.43 The LIF requires disclosure of details about the
landlord/management company and of its
operation.[39] Membership of the
landlord/management company is not relevant in the Hong Kong context. Instead,
the existence of any owners' corporation and the identity of the management
company is of importance to residents. We take the view that the proposed
VIF should state whether there is an owners' corporation and, if so, its name,
and the name of the management company.
2.44 The LIF requires that any dispute relating to planning consent
be referred to.[40] We consider
that planning consent is not of great relevance in Hong Kong and should be
omitted from the proposed VIF.
2.45 A vendor is required to specify in the LIF that he knows of no
disputes about his or any neighbouring property other than those
stated.[41] We consider that
the reference to "disputes" is too vague. Instead, we are of the view that
any pending claims known to the vendor affecting the property should be
disclosed in the proposed VIF.
2.46 The LIF contains a statement to the effect that the vendor will
vacate the flat and hand over vacant possession upon completion of the sale and
purchase and that the flat will then be free from
mortgages.[42] We take the view
that such a statement should be included in the proposed VIF but should be
modified. It should read: "vacant possession and free from mortgages and
subsisting tenancies." However, if there are subsisting tenancies, the terms of
those tenancies should be spelt out.
2.47 The Ontario Seller Property Information Statement requires the
vendor to state any problems with the septic system. Purchasers are likely to
show interest in any such problems known to the vendor. We therefore
consider that if a septic tank is used, this should be referred to in the
proposed VIF.
2.48 The Ontario Vendor Property Information Statement requires the
vendor to state whether he is acting under a Power of Attorney. As a Power of
Attorney may affect the validity of the transaction, purchasers should be warned
of the existence of such a power. We take the view that the proposed VIF
should contain a question to the vendor as to whether or not he is operating
under a Power of Attorney.
2.49 The LIF contains a number of other items such as deposit, other
terms of the contract, stamp duty and a list of documents held by the seller's
solicitors. We consider that it would be too onerous to require vendors to
disclose these sundry items and take the view that they should be left out of
the proposed VIF.
2.50 The consultation paper recommended that the VIF should initially
be adopted on a voluntary basis as a market practice. The Sub-committee
considered that the first step should be for the relevant bodies in Hong Kong
(such as the Law Society and the Estate Agents Authority) to endeavour to have
the VIF adopted as market practice on a voluntary basis. The Sub-committee took
the view that such a course should be welcomed by solicitors and estate agents
as the VIF would enable them to advise their clients fully. The Law Society of
England and Wales adopted a similar voluntary approach under its TransAction
2000 initiative, whereby solicitors in England and Wales have been urged to
adopt the LIF as part of a conveyancing
protocol.[44] The Law Society
pointed out, however, that it was unlikely that vendors would use the LIF
"unless they are required to do so by
legislation".[45]
2.51 The
Sub-committee was, however, conscious that a voluntary approach might not work
and suggested in the consultation paper that the Government should review the
situation at some later stage. If a market practice could not be established by
then, the Government should introduce legislation requiring the completion of a
Vendor's Information Form, at least in relation to newer
buildings.
2.52 In summary, the consultation paper proposed a
moderate two-phase approach by which a period of time would be set aside for the
market to voluntarily try out the VIF scheme. At the end of that period, the
Administration would be left to decide if it was necessary to impose a mandatory
scheme through legislation. There was public support in the responses to the
consultation paper for a voluntary scheme. Some respondents, however, expressed
scepticism over the likelihood of establishing a VIF as a market practice on a
voluntary basis. They held the view that the VIF should be made compulsory from
the outset by legislation.
2.53 We have carefully reviewed the views
expressed in response to the sub-committee’s consultation paper and have
concluded that, in respect of the sale of second-hand properties, the VIF should
be introduced on a voluntary basis, at least initially. In reaching this
conclusion, we have taken account of the fact that sales in the second-hand
market generally involve private individuals. The vendor and the purchaser are
therefore usually on an equal footing and there is less need to make provision
to protect a weaker party from a stronger, as in the case where the vendor is a
corporate developer. The resources available to an individual vendor in the
second-hand market are likely to be considerably less than those of a developer
selling in the first-hand market, and it may be that the individual vendor may
prefer not to expend the necessary effort to complete a VIF. In the
circumstances, we would prefer if possible to achieve the introduction of the
VIF by voluntary market acceptance, rather than by the imposition of a
legislative sanction at the outset. Even under a voluntary approach, the
information currently mandated by the Estate Agents Ordinance will continue to
be made available to purchasers, whether or not the vendor has chosen to
complete a VIF in addition.
2.54 We accordingly take the view that the
VIF should be implemented by a voluntary scheme, at least initially. Unlike a
compulsory scheme which requires a lengthy period to complete the legislative
process, a voluntary scheme is flexible and can be implemented quickly. If the
VIF is promoted, a prudent purchaser will naturally demand a VIF from the
vendor. The vendor failing for whatever reason to supply a VIF will put the
prudent purchaser on suspicion of the desirability of going ahead with the
transaction. We believe that in this way market forces will establish the VIF
as accepted market practice.
2.55 We do not rule out the possibility,
however, of a compulsory scheme at a later stage if a market practice for the
VIF cannot be established as envisaged. In our view, it is desirable for the
market to voluntarily try out the scheme. Any experience obtained from the
voluntary scheme will assist the Administration in making a rational decision as
to whether or not a compulsory scheme should be introduced and, if so, in what
way. If the VIF is subsequently adopted through legislation, we think it would
be sensible for the Administration to review the Estate Agents Ordinance with a
view to reconciling the disclosure duties of the vendor and the estate
agent.
2.56 One respondent suggested during consultation that vendors of
units in old buildings should be exempted from any compulsory VIF scheme. The
respondent pointed out that such units are likely to be of relatively smaller
value and their owners less well-off. Building plans of old buildings are not
readily accessible and in some cases are missing. We agree with this view
and wish to note that if, at a later stage, it is considered desirable to
introduce a compulsory VIF scheme, the feasibility of the scheme in respect of
older buildings should be further considered by the
Administration.
2.57 There is a view that if the VIF is to be made
compulsory at a later stage, the legislation should include a provision enabling
the parties to contract out of its various requirements. The merit of such a
provision is that it provides a degree of flexibility to parties who want to go
ahead with the transaction quickly and where the purchaser is willing to accept
the risk of doing so without a full VIF. On the other hand, such a provision
for contracting out will undermine the effectiveness of the VIF as a means of
making the vendor liable for information provided to the purchaser. In our
view, a contracting out provision would defeat the whole purpose of the VIF
scheme and is therefore not desirable. We take the view that the flexibility
given by such a provision would in fact work against the interests of
purchasers. By accepting a contracting out provision, the purchaser accepts the
risk of buying a property without essential sales information. We anticipate,
however, that once introduced, the VIF will come to be more accepted over time
with fewer parties wanting to contract out.
|
Recommendation 2 We recommend the introduction of a Vendor's Information Form for the sale of completed residential properties in the second-hand market. Relevant bodies in Hong Kong should be encouraged to make the Vendor's Information Form a market practice in the near future. The Government should monitor the situation at some stage later. Unless a market practice can be established by then, the Government should introduce legislation making it compulsory to provide a Vendor's Information Form. We recommend that a vendor should make available a Vendor's Information Form when his unit is put on the market (whether through an estate agent or not). The proposed Vendor's Information Form should contain at least the following warning clauses and property particulars: Warning clauses We recommend that the vendor should update the information in the Vendor's Information Form if he knows of changes subsequent to the date of its preparation. We recommend that if the Government should decide to make the Vendor's Information Form compulsory, the Government should embark on a review of the Estate Agents Ordinance with a view to reconciling the disclosure duties of the vendor and the estate agent. |
2.58 At present, different kinds of property information are provided
by various Government departments such as the Rating and Valuation Department,
the Buildings Department and the Land Registry. We consider that there is a
need for a single Government body to collate these various kinds of property
information so that the public could have access at one location. This role
could be filled by the Land Registry or, indeed, any other appropriate
Government agency. We understand that it would probably take some years to
implement such a centralised search system but we consider that the
Administration should explore the feasibility of this option. We are aware that
the enhanced Info-Hotline Services of the Rating and Valuation Department has
already included some information required, and that a study conducted by the
Estate Agents Authority concluded that such a system would be costly and
time-consuming, but we believe that a centralised system such as we propose
would justify the resources expended on its creation.
2.59 There was
general support in the public responses for a centralised property information
system. In fact, one respondent pointed out that the Land Registry had already
taken the initiative by way of a Strategic Change Plan to bring about simpler
and quicker land registration procedures, and simpler and more cost-effective
operation of the Land Registry as a whole. Furthermore, the Land Registry was
working with the Rating and Valuation Department to consider how their
respective data-bases could be integrated. It is hoped that a one-stop search
service on land data can be provided as soon as practicable. In our view, these
are encouraging developments and represent moves in the direction of our
recommendation for a centralised property information system.
2.60 We
believe that the process could be greatly assisted if developers were encouraged
to feed information on new first-hand properties into the system. This would
provide most of the information needed for inclusion in the VIF in relation to
subsequent transactions once the properties had become second-hand. One option
would be for the information to be made registrable by developers at first
assignment. We consider that the Administration should explore ways in which
the information necessary for later completion of the VIF could be input by
developers into the centralised property information system at the first-hand
property stage.
|
Recommendation 3 We recommend that the Administration should consider exploring the option of establishing a centralised property information system. In doing so, the Administration should consider ways in which the information necessary for later completion of the VIF could be input by developers into the centralised property information system at the first-hand property stage. |
[14] The Law Society of England and Wales, Conveyancing Reform: TransAction 2000, August 1998, paragraph 6.1.
[15] Conveyancing Reform, above, paragraphs 5.3 and 6.1.
[16] Idaho Statutes, Property in General (Title 55) <http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid> (22.8.2001)
[17] Idaho Statutes, above, paragraphs 55-2507(1) and 55-2508.
[18] Idaho Statutes, above, paragraph 55-2507(3).
[19] Idaho Statutes, above, paragraph 55-2507(4).
[20] Idaho Statutes, above, paragraph 55-2509.
[21]
<www.legl.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504> (22.8.2001): Code of Virginia
Title 55 - Property and
Conveyances.
[22]
<www.reco.on.ca/legislation_rules&guiding-principles.htm>
(22.8.2001).
[23] The Ontario Real Estate Association has informed us that the name of the form has changed from "Vendor" to "Seller". The form which is in general use is still undergoing scrutiny and revisions.
[24] Conveyancing Reform, above, paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2.
[25] Based on a briefing given to the Sub-committee on 29 July 1999 by Mr C S Wong, Deputy Commissioner, Rating and Valuation Department. The remaining ten percent of units not covered by the Info-Hotline Service system are village houses (not having approved building plans), newly built units not yet assessed to rates and some public housing estates.
[26] The Law Society of England and Wales, Conveyancing Reform: TransAction 2000, August 1998, above.
[27] These warning clauses are modelled on those contained in the LIF described in Conveyancing Reform, above.
[28] LIF, paragraph 1.
[29] LIF, paragraph 2.
[30] LIF, paragraph 3.
[31] LIF, paragraph 10.
[32] LIF, paragraph 4.
[33] LIF, paragraph 7.
[34] LIF, paragraph 8.
[35] LIF, paragraph 9.
[36] LIF, paragraph 10.
[37] See estate agent's declaration at the end of the Vendor's Statement (Part 2 of Form1) under Estate Agents Practice (General Duties & Hong Kong Residential Properties) Regulation, Cap 511C Schedule 1 Forms.
[38] LIF, paragraph 13.
[39] LIF, paragraphs 15 and 16.
[40] LIF, paragraph 17.
[41] LIF, paragraph 19.
[42] LIF, paragraph 24.
[43] LIF, paragraphs 25 and 26.
[44] In 1990 the Law Society of England and Wales introduced 'TransAction' setting out the protocol in dealings between solicitors over the conveyancing process. It included standard forms for the contract and pre-contract information designed solely for dealing with sales of homes. A working party of the Law Society was later convened to revise the documents required under the TransAction protocol. The revised protocol was launched under the title 'TransAction 2000'. The principal part of TransAction 2000 was the introduction of a Legal Information Form. (See Conveyancing Reform, above, at paragraphs 2.1 and 4.1).
[45] Conveyancing Reform, above, paragraph 9.1.