is denied Clause Samples

is denied. The Defendant will contend to the contrary. That, the sale agreement clearly indicates the title cannot be used to access financing, the exact location is determined by land surveyors and pegs, no environment for errors is present as markings and pegs are have (sic) been put in place by the seller and ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and her agents have purposefully trespassed and tried to illegally take possession of parts of the land which was not being considered for sale. Lot one. The title does not impact on the financing for the development in any way, no delays caused by title, the title has not impacted on the development being placed on the market. Rather ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ has decided to ignore the terms of the sale agreement and the timelines therein and has in 2019 sought and received approval for additional developmental works thereby extending the numerous breaches of contract no loss of profits can be suffered due to a title which should be delivered as a part of payment for purchase of the land. ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ cannot claim full ownership to the land until and unless payment for same is made”. [12] The Counterclaim asserts breaches of Clauses 14, 16 and 20 and the Claimant’s failure to make payment of a two bedroom townhouse. It is said that there has been a failure to complete the development within the 36 months agreed or in a timely manner. It is also alleged that the Claimant its servants and/or agents trespassed on the Defendant’s property and used bullying and intimidating tactics causing loss. Damages are claimed by the Defendant. [13] In its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim the Claimant admits that the splinter title should remain in the Defendant’s name pursuant to Clauses 5 and 6. It is asserted that it is the Defendant’s dilatoriness which prevented issuance of splinter titles. The Claimant says on the 26th July, 2012 it lodged a caveat against Vol. 1262 Folio 705 to secure its interest in the land as it had paid a deposit even before the agreement for sale was signed. The Claimant says it consented as caveator to a mortgage being granted to the Defendant. The Claimant asserts that there was no caveat to be lifted and that all property taxes have been paid since 2013. It is denied that any pegs were removed or that any trespass occurred on the Defendant’s land. It is denied that copies of the Claimant’s building approvals were required to obtain the splinter titles. It is denied that the eight days agreed for request of titles was unreasonable as this was a...