Login
Qld home buyer loses a $1.6m property over goats and a tiny house
A woman who declined to settle the sale of a $1,580,000 property south of Brisbane, complaining of minor contract breaches, has had her appeal dismissed in court.
In March 2024, Neveen Moussa agreed to purchase Mellissa Eather’s Tambourine property with a deposit of $79,000, with additional terms attached.
In April that year, Moussa refused to settle and failed to pay the purchase balance price, arguing there were various breaches of the contract.
Among the alleged breaches were that two goats included in the contract price were no longer at the property, the garage, shed, and side patio doors were left dirty, and a wheelie bin had not been emptied.
Additionally, she argued that items included in the contract price had been removed from a tiny house on the premises, including cushions, throws, doormats, and bathroom accessories.
After the settlement period had passed, Eather sought to terminate the contract on the basis that Moussa had failed to complete the sale, prompting the buyer to take the matter to court.
In her statement of claim, Moussa sought that Eather hand over the property within seven days of a successful outcome, in the same condition as when the parties entered into the contract.
In July last year, Supreme Court Justice Glenn Martin dismissed Moussa’s claim, arguing the alleged breaches had not warranted her refusal to settle.
“It is difficult to understand how, for example, an option to purchase two goats could be regarded as an essential term of the contract,” he said.
At Brisbane’s Court of Appeal last week, Justice Tom Sullivan upheld the original decision, likewise saying that the alleged breaches were not contraventions of essential terms.
“I am satisfied that the alleged breaches as pleaded … are not breaches of Essential Terms of the contract, or serious breaches of innominate terms of the contract which would give rise to a right to terminate on the part of Ms Moussa,” he said.
He said that Eather was within her rights to terminate the contract following Moussa’s refusal to pay the balance of the purchase price.
As a result, he dismissed the appeal and ordered that Moussa pay Eather’s legal costs.
“I am satisfied that Ms Moussa had no real prospects of successfully prosecuting her case, or any part of it, and there was nothing else raised which required a trial,” he concluded.