Missing goats, long grass, full bins: Homebuyer’s incredible list of demands

A Queensland woman’s list of demands when trying to buy a $1.6m Tamborine home and hobby farm have seen the purchase fall through after a legal battle.

The prospective buyer had a long list of demands. Picture: Realestate.com.au

A Queensland homebuyer’s purchase has turned into a nightmare after she has lost her chance to buy a $1.6m hobby farm because she refused to settle the contract when two goats were no longer at the hobby farm.

Neveen Moussa sued seller Mellissa Gai Eather on 29 May 2024, a month after the April 24 date that she was due to settle on the Tamborine property, south of Brisbane.

Ms Moussa did not pay the balance purchase price on the April 24 settlement date, claiming Ms Eather was in breach of contract because the two goats “included in the contract price” were no longer on the three hectare property, and the wheelie bins had not been emptied – among other gripes.

One of the goats at the property Picture CoreLogic

Ms Moussa’s Supreme Court claim was part of her bid to force Ms Eather to hand over the keys to the four-bedroom two-bathroom home within seven business days of the legal win she was anticipating.

But in his decision handed down on July 7, Supreme Court Justice Glenn Martin threw out Ms Moussa’s claim and awarded Ms Eather unspecified damages for Ms Moussa’s breach of contract over the Greensward Road property.

“It is difficult to understand how, for example, an option to purchase two goats could be regarded as an essential term of the contract,” Justice Martin concluded.

“Likewise, it is not obvious that failure to empty a wheelie bin would constitute a breach of an essential term. Nevertheless, these were relied upon by Ms Moussa,” he stated.

The Tamborine hobby farm and home. Picture: Realestate.com.au

A special condition of the purchase contract also stated that “the two rubber swans in the dam” and 15 chickens would be included in the sale to Ms Moussa, the decision states.

There was no suggestion the two rubber swans were removed from the property.

Justice Martin will assess how much money Ms Eather is entitled to receive in damages from Ms Moussa at a future date

“Ms Eather lawfully terminated the contract and is entitled to claim damages arising out of the breach by Ms Moussa,” he concluded.

When she discovered the goats were missing and the mowing was not done on April 22, Ms Moussa claimed she offered to allow Ms Eather “a two day settlement extension to 24 April” to give Ms Eather time to return the missing goats, mow the lawn, and fix the gate, shed and remove dead insects and vacuum floors.

Ms Eather still owns the home which is now valued at $1.72m, according to CoreLogic.

She bought the home in 2021 for $1.38m.

Justice Martin found that Ms Moussa was obliged to pay the balance of the $1.6m purchase price on the April 24 settlement date, but did not hand over the cash even though Ms Eather was ready, willing and able to perform her obligations under the contract.

Ms Moussa unsuccessfully claimed Ms Eather breached the contract because the rear lawns and paddocks were unmowed and didn’t remove fallen trees and debris.

Ms Moussa also wanted the septic tank/irrigation pipe to be repaired, the front gate fixed,

and old furniture, cider bottles and paint cans to be removed and for the floors of the garage, shed and side patio to be vacuumed.

Ms Moussa was also upset because Ms Eather failed to leave her the cushions, throws, doormats, bathroom accessories in the tiny house and a “map of the fruit trees, their number, type and location”.

A tiny house on the property. Picture: CoreLogic

She also wanted an electrical cable running from the tiny house to be buried.

“Ms Moussa, in her statement of claim, appears to treat all the breaches … as breaches of conditions of the contract,” Justice Martin stated.

But later as the case progressed and after pleadings were filed Justice Martin concluded Ms Moussa was “taken to have admitted that none of the breaches” by Ms Eather “were of essential terms”.

“Ms Moussa is taken to have admitted that she was not entitled to refuse to settle on 24 April,” he wrote.

Ms Moussa unsuccessfully argued in court that additional conditions of the sale agreed on March 18 – including that the tiny house would be sold including bedding, towels, decor, indoor and outdoor furniture, and all chattels presently in it – “formed part of the terms and conditions of the contract since 19 March 2024”.

Ms Eather denied this, arguing they were incorporated as “warranties or intermediate terms in the contract, not conditions or essential terms.”

Ms Eather successfully submitted she had not breached any essential term of the contract, so Ms Moussa was not entitled to refuse to settle on April 24.

Ms Eather seeks her costs on an indemnity basis and this has not yet been decided.

Originally published as Missing goats, long grass, full bins: Homebuyer’s incredible list of demands