Michael and Nadine Kucks believed they had agreed to sell their Hodgson Vale home near Toowoomba for $1.355 million. What they signed was a contract for $1.21 million.
The property had been marketed through agents. Jessica and Kristian Beck first submitted expressions of interest at $1.2 million and then $1.21 million, subject to finance, a building and pest inspection and the sale of another property.
Later negotiations became tangled. Mrs Beck said she floated a higher $1.355 million offer if furniture and early access were included. The agent arranged a contract for $1.21 million, which the Becks read and signed.
The Becks’ evidence was that they took the lower-priced contract to mean their earlier offer had been accepted, while the higher offer with extra conditions had not.
The contract signed by the buyers was then sent to the sellers by DocuSign.
The Kucks signed it electronically the next day without reading the purchase price.
Their conveyancing solicitor did not identify the discrepancy until more than a month later, despite an online listing at one stage recording the property as sold for $1.21 million.
By then, the Becks had paid the deposit, obtained finance approval and completed their building and pest inspection. Settlement was due in December 2025, but the parties produced settlement figures based on different prices and the sale did not complete.
The Kucks sought to unwind or change the deal.
They applied to the court to argue that the true agreement was for $1.355 million, that the Becks had taken unconscientious advantage of a serious mistake, and that the buyers’ silence was misleading or deceptive.
That argument required proof that the Becks knew, or should have known, that the sellers were signing under a serious mistake and deliberately allowed it to continue. The court found there was no evidence of that.
The Becks knew they were signing for $1.21 million and did not know the Kucks expected $1.355 million. They had never met or spoken to the sellers, and negotiations passed through the sellers’ agents. The contract was also sent to the Kucks for review before they signed.
The court rejected the alternative relief that was claimed – “rectification” – as well. Rectification can correct a document that fails to record a shared intention, but the parties did not share one here: the Becks intended to buy for $1.21 million, while the Kucks intended to sell for $1.355 million.
Justice Elizabeth Wilson granted the Becks specific performance of the contract, requiring the Kucks to complete.
The court also accepted that the Becks could recover alternative-accommodation rent at $814.73 per week until 31 March 2026 and left the final form of orders and costs to be addressed after the reasons.
