Last Thursday I caught the train to Gloucester. It was 35 minutes late leaving Maitland and almost an hour late by the time it got to Gloucester which is something more then 100 km north of here. Still the train trip was comfortable enough. As I travelled I thought how the train service has declined, that the fastest train from Sydney to Newcastle is now slower then the steam hauled "Flyer" of my childhood- and the Flyer had a dining car! Even the XPT's are slower then they used to be (15 minutes slower between Sydney and Maitland) which means that some connections are no longer kept even when the trains are on time.
And this in a state which has spent so much money on roads. Its about time that this was reversed. I am writing to our local MP's Perhaps I will post the response. My friend in Sydney Gordon Cheng has posted about public Transport http://ingmarhingwah.blogspot.com/search/label/public%20transport and there are groups pressing for change but nothing seems to happen much.
Its about time it did.
<>
Monday, June 16, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Deposit bonds a warning to vendors
Deposit bonds are one way that purchasers use to bridge the gap when they don’t have the money to pay a deposit to the agent when they are buying land The bonds are a promise by an insurance company to pay the deposit that the purchaser would otherwise have to if the purchaser defaults under a contract. The purchaser buys the bond- most banks and building societies will sell them. In most cases the bond is never called upon because the purchaser settles and pays the whole of the money on settlement instead of the more usual balance of the price less deposit.
Vendors can check online to make sure the bond is real (there were stories of forged bonds in Sydney not so long ago) and many vendors regard the bonds as almost as good as having the money in the agents trust account. In fact some say its better because all you have to do to get the bond paid is to apply to the insurance company. You don’t have to prove that the purchaser has breached the contract in such a way that entitles the vendor to get the deposit. To get the money out of the agent often means you have to sue the purchaser and get a judgement first.
But, a recent court case has shown how the insurance company can get out of paying the bond. Reliance Developments sold land at Tuggerah to Mrs McKenzie for $1,600,000. Mrs McKenzie ‘paid’ the deposit by giving a bond issued by Lumley Insurance for $160,000. But Mrs McKenzie defaulted and Reliance terminated the contract.
On 12th September 2006 Reliance’s solicitor wrote to Lumleys saying they enclosed the original bond, a notice terminating the contract and a statement that Mrs McKenzie had not paid the deposit. The solicitors sent the letter by both fax and post. If in fact they had sent all those things then Lumley would have had to pay under the bond. But the solicitors sent the wrong notice (Mrs McKenzie’s company had rented the building and the solicitors sent a notice terminating the lease by mistake). Lumley did nothing until it got the original of the letter –the day before the bond expired on 22nd September. Lumley then wrote by ordinary post to the solicitors saying the wrong document had been sent. The solicitors got that letter on 25th September. They responded immediately, sending the right notice that day. Lumley denied liability- saying the bond had expired.
The Court said Lumley was right to do so because it was only liable if the strict conditions of the bond had been fulfilled. Commentators say that bond issuers like Lumleys do not have to give reasons for denial of claims even if the claim is made within time and the problem can be solved within time. All it has to do is sit and not pay under the bond.
Be warned.
Legal column in local papers for fortnight beginning 2nd June
Vendors can check online to make sure the bond is real (there were stories of forged bonds in Sydney not so long ago) and many vendors regard the bonds as almost as good as having the money in the agents trust account. In fact some say its better because all you have to do to get the bond paid is to apply to the insurance company. You don’t have to prove that the purchaser has breached the contract in such a way that entitles the vendor to get the deposit. To get the money out of the agent often means you have to sue the purchaser and get a judgement first.
But, a recent court case has shown how the insurance company can get out of paying the bond. Reliance Developments sold land at Tuggerah to Mrs McKenzie for $1,600,000. Mrs McKenzie ‘paid’ the deposit by giving a bond issued by Lumley Insurance for $160,000. But Mrs McKenzie defaulted and Reliance terminated the contract.
On 12th September 2006 Reliance’s solicitor wrote to Lumleys saying they enclosed the original bond, a notice terminating the contract and a statement that Mrs McKenzie had not paid the deposit. The solicitors sent the letter by both fax and post. If in fact they had sent all those things then Lumley would have had to pay under the bond. But the solicitors sent the wrong notice (Mrs McKenzie’s company had rented the building and the solicitors sent a notice terminating the lease by mistake). Lumley did nothing until it got the original of the letter –the day before the bond expired on 22nd September. Lumley then wrote by ordinary post to the solicitors saying the wrong document had been sent. The solicitors got that letter on 25th September. They responded immediately, sending the right notice that day. Lumley denied liability- saying the bond had expired.
The Court said Lumley was right to do so because it was only liable if the strict conditions of the bond had been fulfilled. Commentators say that bond issuers like Lumleys do not have to give reasons for denial of claims even if the claim is made within time and the problem can be solved within time. All it has to do is sit and not pay under the bond.
Be warned.
Legal column in local papers for fortnight beginning 2nd June
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
President Carter and the downfall of the Soviet Union
There's an idea that hangs round like a bad smell, that President Carter was a weak president who kowtowed to the Soviets and let the Communists get away with anything, that to be blunt he was a patsy.
I think that was put about by the same Republicans who maligned John Kerry's record as a decorated commander in Vietnam while G W Bush went AWOL (I have often wondered why he wasn't charged, I wonder even more what his father - another decorated serviceman- he flew Grumman Avengers Lightnings in the Pacific in World War 2- thought of his son's avoidence of service).After all President Carter is the only professional serviceman (in the wider sense- he was in the Navy) to become President since Ike (and he served in Korea, his commander Admiral Richover later saying that if Carter had stayed in the forces he would have become Chief of the Naval Staff ).
Anyhow another Republican- Robert M Gates (currently US Secretary of Defence and formerly Director of the CIA- the only career CIA officer to become Director) has set the record staight in his "From the Shadows" (published by Simon and Schuster). Gates shows that Carter not only continued all the weapons research that previous presidents had started (such as tactical neuclear weapons) but far more importantly commenced 'covert ' programmes to support human right activists in the Soviet Union. These programmes caused the Communist regime so much trouble that they (according to Gates) regarded Carter as the most dangerous President in undermining the evil empire.
And reading Gates its not hard to see why. Carter's support for dissidents for Helsinki watch and those other now gone bugbears of the Communists showed the communist system for what it was - a tyranny built on lies.
The fact that Carter refused to support right wing repressive regimes and indeed called for their reform only made him more dangerous to the Communists. They couldnt attack him as two faced.
And Carters actions were firmly based in his faith in Jesus Christ.
Gates book is now 12 years old and perhaps for some it is old news but the myth of the Carter weakness wont go away. Gates's unbiased account deserves to be better known.
I think that was put about by the same Republicans who maligned John Kerry's record as a decorated commander in Vietnam while G W Bush went AWOL (I have often wondered why he wasn't charged, I wonder even more what his father - another decorated serviceman- he flew Grumman Avengers Lightnings in the Pacific in World War 2- thought of his son's avoidence of service).After all President Carter is the only professional serviceman (in the wider sense- he was in the Navy) to become President since Ike (and he served in Korea, his commander Admiral Richover later saying that if Carter had stayed in the forces he would have become Chief of the Naval Staff ).
Anyhow another Republican- Robert M Gates (currently US Secretary of Defence and formerly Director of the CIA- the only career CIA officer to become Director) has set the record staight in his "From the Shadows" (published by Simon and Schuster). Gates shows that Carter not only continued all the weapons research that previous presidents had started (such as tactical neuclear weapons) but far more importantly commenced 'covert ' programmes to support human right activists in the Soviet Union. These programmes caused the Communist regime so much trouble that they (according to Gates) regarded Carter as the most dangerous President in undermining the evil empire.
And reading Gates its not hard to see why. Carter's support for dissidents for Helsinki watch and those other now gone bugbears of the Communists showed the communist system for what it was - a tyranny built on lies.
The fact that Carter refused to support right wing repressive regimes and indeed called for their reform only made him more dangerous to the Communists. They couldnt attack him as two faced.
And Carters actions were firmly based in his faith in Jesus Christ.
Gates book is now 12 years old and perhaps for some it is old news but the myth of the Carter weakness wont go away. Gates's unbiased account deserves to be better known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)