iscover
The owners of a rural Queensland property lost $145,000 after signing a contract without reading it, amid alleged communication issues with the agent that led to confusion over the agreed price.
A couple who intended to sell their Hodgson Vale property for $1.35 million have lost a court battle after failing to properly read the sale contract and agreeing to a price $145,000 lower.
Last year, Nadine and Michael Kucks engaged the real estate agency McGrath Toowoomba to sell their house in Hodgson Vale.
On 22 September 2025, buyers Jessica and Kristian Beck signed a contract via Docusign for the house, with a purchase price of $1,210,000, subject to conditions.
The next day, the same contract was signed by the Kucks, who did not read the document and believed the price was $1,355,000.
While the online real estate listing stated at one point that the property was sold for $1,210,000, the Kucks’ conveyancing solicitor only discovered the error a month later, on 28 October.
Following the realisation of the mistake, the Kucks’ and the Becks’ solicitors engaged in correspondence to try to achieve a settlement.
By 31 October, the Becks had satisfied the contract conditions, including paying the deposit, obtaining finance approval and a building and pest inspection.
While settlement was scheduled for 3 December, the parties failed to agree on the purchase price, and it did not proceed, as both believed the other was in breach of the contract.
In January 2026, the Becks filed a claim and statement of claim, seeking relief, including an order for the sale to be completed, as well as damages and costs for the inconvenience.
The Kucks later filed a defence and counterclaim, intending for the contract to be rescinded, or alternatively, an amendment of the sale price, as well as damages and costs.
According to the Supreme Court of Queensland’s Justice Elizabeth Wilson, the Becks’ intent when signing the contract for the $1,210,000 offer was pivotal to determining the outcome of the case.
When making offers on the property, Jessica Beck, the couple's primary negotiator, was dealing with McGrath Toowoomba’s property partner, Lachlan Brown, and director, Heston Marino.
According to the court papers, after submitting an expression of interest for $1,210,000, with conditions attached, Beck was told by Brown that the sellers were not accepting offers at that time but might consider it if there was nothing better from other buyers.
However, Brown told the court that he recalled the conversation differently, denying that he had told Beck an offer of $1,210,000 was under consideration, as it was only the first week of the campaign.
Shortly after the conversation, Brown went on leave, and Beck later followed up with Marino about her offer instead.
On 22 September, Beck asked Marino whether the sellers had returned with an answer regarding her expression of interest for $1,210,000.
“Heston said to me words to the effect that he was still waiting for the owners to come back with a decision,” she told the court.
Beck said that if the owners would not sell for that price, she wanted to know whether they would take a higher offer of $1,355,000, which also included the furniture and early access to the property.
She said that Marino replied he would ask the owners and get back to her.
However, Marino recalled that he had firmly told her the increased offer of $1,355,000 would not include any furniture, due to clear instructions from the Kucks, and that there was no guarantee about the early access.
Beck then asked whether she needed to complete another expression of interest form under the new conditions.
“In reply, Heston said to me words to the following effect: ‘Just send me a text message with the number in it and we can work out the conditions later’.”
Later, after Beck followed up with Marino about the offer once again, he responded that he had sent her a contract and wanted to “push your offer rather than the cash we have on the table”.
Although she had not yet viewed the contract, due to Marino’s wording, Beck said she believed the Kucks had accepted the $1,210,000 offer rather than the $1,355,000 offer with added conditions.
Justice Wilson confirmed that the contract sent to the Becks was for $1,210,000.
The Becks then signed the contract and returned it to the agents, who forwarded it to the Kucks, who signed it without reading.
“I accept that the Becks … at the time they signed the contract, were not aware, or knew, that the Kucks intended to enter into a contract for the property for a purchase price of $1,355,000,” Justice Wilson said.
Justice Wilson said that the Becks were not mistaken when executing the contract, as they had read it and agreed to its terms, and that there was no basis for the Kucks to refuse to complete the sale.
She ordered that the Kucks continue the sale at the price specified in the contract and that they pay the Becks’ rent of $814.73 per week until 31 March, due to the delayed settlement.
