Cheeky Agents with Clauses

[Brady]

Had a few agents which I think are being very cheeky this week. (both in SA)

- One agent allowed my client to have subject to building inspection, but this was to be completed during the cooling off period... To me no point being a clause on the contract as it's during cooling off period anyway

- Other agent signed my clients into a contract on the 18/3 subject to finance provided me to contract today 19/3 being Wednesday. Finance is due on the 24/3... yes they have given me 2 days for formal finance approval. Luckily I had a solid pre-approval in place and no valuation was required and finance was approved within 30mins, but thats besides the point. What if I needed a valuation or file needed to be sent to credit.

In both cases clients don't speak the best english, not sure if this had an impact.

 

[wylie]

If someone crashes a contract via building clause, they don't pay any penalty, but if they simply use their cooling off, isn't there a penalty percentage to pay?

Therefore, there is a difference, isn't there, between "changing your mind" and pulling out due to an unsatisfactory building report?

And with the finance clause, most contracts I've seen or signed as a vendor give a number of working days once the contract is signed (I thought). I've not seen one with a date nominated because the contract might take days after it is started before it comes together.

 

[Corey Batt]

Had a few agents which I think are being very cheeky this week. (both in SA)

- One agent allowed my client to have subject to building inspection, but this was to be completed during the cooling off period... To me no point being a clause on the contract as it's during cooling off period anyway

- Other agent signed my clients into a contract on the 18/3 subject to finance provided me to contract today 19/3 being Wednesday. Finance is due on the 24/3... yes they have given me 2 days for formal finance approval. Luckily I had a solid pre-approval in place and no valuation was required and finance was approved within 30mins, but thats besides the point. What if I needed a valuation or file needed to be sent to credit.

In both cases clients don't speak the best english, not sure if this had an impact.

I've had clients with the EXACT same clauses, I bet we've been dealing with the same agents. In some cases its just agent incompetence in understanding how finance works, but there are the few which try to be sneaky hugely at the expense of the buyers.

 

[Brady]

If someone crashes a contract via building clause, they don't pay any penalty, but if they simply use their cooling off, isn't there a penalty percentage to pay?

Therefore, there is a difference, isn't there, between "changing your mind" and pulling out due to an unsatisfactory building report?

And with the finance clause, most contracts I've seen or signed as a vendor give a number of working days once the contract is signed (I thought). I've not seen one with a date nominated because the contract might take days after it is started before it comes together.

As noted SA AGENTS. We can cool off down here with no penatly.

So really agent just puts it in to make the purchasers happy, when infact there is no real benefit.

To get a build inspector inside two days through property and report drawn up along with run through of any issues can be tough. I picked this up on agent trying to push my brother into a purchase, ended up getting contract amended to state satisfactory B&P within 7 days which is more reasonable. Luckily we did as was many issues that ended up getting fixed by the vendors.

 

[Brady]

I've had clients with the EXACT same clauses, I bet we've been dealing with the same agents. In some cases its just agent incompetence in understanding how finance works, but there are the few which try to be sneaky hugely at the expense of the buyers.

I really wouldn't be surprised. It's just a play by the agents, "no problem sir subject to finance it's in, subject to building no problem" when infact unless the purchaser is switched on then they don't get done in time and you ultimately have an unconditional contract which you didn't get a discount on the purchase price.

 

[Corey Batt]

I really wouldn't be surprised. It's just a play by the agents, "no problem sir subject to finance it's in, subject to building no problem" when infact unless the purchaser is switched on then they don't get done in time and you ultimately have an unconditional contract which you didn't get a discount on the purchase price.

Correct. A close friend of mine was almost stung by these shenanigans, he emailed through the contract to me with a 3 day finance clause. I called the agent immediately (who quite a number of clients have purchased off) and let him know my thoughts on the matter. Contract was revised to a 14 day finance clause as a renegotiation.

I won't accept B&P inspections being done in cooling off, it's unreasonable to expect an inspector to book, complete and generate a report of value within that time frame, let alone give the purchaser time to consider their position and provide a counter offer/exit contract.

But then again, it's not known as one of the most hated professions for a reason.

 

[Brady]

I was preparing to let the agents have it... But finance was approved same day for the finance clause one and spoke to other client regarding B&P and she had organised inspection for next day with same day report... I just hope the inspector wasn't recommended by the agent

Still think I will be letting the agents know my thoughts, it's not really fair on anyone.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Office of housing likes 30 day contracts (in just about any state). It usually takes them over a week to sign the contract and they still expect settlement within the following 3 weeks.

Not that the legal people ever seem to give a damn...

 

[Scott No Mates]

As noted SA AGENTS.
So really agent just puts it in to make the purchasers happy, when infact there is no real benefit.

There is a benefit, it gets the deal over the line with the buyer under the reliance that there is no penalty (real or other). For you, it is a no cost/give away condition which gives the buyer satisfaction of an extra 'out' if necessary.

 

[Brady]

There is a benefit, it gets the deal over the line with the buyer under the reliance that there is no penalty (real or other). For you, it is a no cost/give away condition which gives the buyer satisfaction of an extra 'out' if necessary.

But it's not an extra out. They could cool off without penalty already. The buyer has no benefit at all by having this condition on the contract under those terms.

Th only benefit is to the seller and agent as it got the deal other the line.

 

[Scott No Mates]

It is all about perception - buyer wins (an extra clause) vendor wins (the deal is done), ie: win-win.

 

[D.T.]

It is all about perception - buyer wins (an extra clause) vendor wins (the deal is done), ie: win-win.

But its not an extra clause and could knowingly cause the buyer to come unstuck

 

[Dazz]

One agent allowed my client to have

Allowed ?? I gather from your story, your client is the Buyer.

How on earth did it get to the point where the Seller's paid representative was in a position to boss the Buyer around ??

To the best of my knowledge, every real estate contract is between two Principals, the Buyer and Seller. The agent has no contractual power whatsoever, but sometimes comes in handy as they stand around twiddling their thumbs as a mere fill in when the Principals need someone (anyone will do) to witness their signature.

Please explain how the agent allowed your client to do anything ??

Other agent signed my clients into a contract

The agent signed what ?? How do agents sign clients ??

Surely that is a misprint and should read "my clients signed a contract".

If your clients are adults, and legally classified as sane individuals, then they must take full responsibility for what they sign.


Could be wrong, but it very much sounds like a case of Buyers being kittens and getting their *** kicked all over the park.

Situations like this always arise when the natural order of things is interrupted and the boss (a) doesn't know what they are doing and (b) are timid little lambs......underlings thrive and run amok in situations like this. As you mention in your headings, the agents may have been cheeky, but the Buyers provided the conditions for them to be so.

Highly suggest your clients get some legal advice before they start throwing their signatures around on contracts in the future.

 

[D.T.]

Dazz, maybe they were drunk and like spreading their signature everywhere?

 

[JacM]

Daz is right - buyers are adults that are capable of reading words on pages, such as words about building and pest clauses. With that said, buyers that are not purchasing property regularly might not realise the impact of clauses that are very tight on the timings. You'd hope their legal reps would pick it up immediately and be all over it like a rash.

 

[Hypnotic Cat]

Had a few agents which I think are being very cheeky this week. (both in SA)

- One agent allowed my client to have subject to building inspection, but this was to be completed during the cooling off period... To me no point being a clause on the contract as it's during cooling off period anyway

.

I came across the same kind of thing last December in SA. A certain RE agent attempted to persaude me to not include a B&P inspection in my offer conditions. He took pains to emphasise that in his 14 years in real estate that he has never included a B&P clause on a contract. That may or may not be true, but frankly that strains the bounds of credibility.

He also insisted on the B&P being completed during cooling off period. Talk about being pushy. In my opinion he was being an Anti-Salesperson! Long story short , I voted with my feet and walked away from the deal.

 

[Dazz]

I came across the same kind of thing last December in SA. A certain RE agent attempted to persaude me to not include a B&P inspection in my offer conditions. He took pains to emphasise that in his 14 years in real estate that he has never included a B&P clause on a contract. That may or may not be true, but frankly that strains the bounds of credibility.

He also insisted on the B&P being completed during cooling off period. Talk about being pushy. In my opinion he was being an Anti-Salesperson! Long story short , I voted with my feet and walked away from the deal.

The lowly Agents seem to be running amok.

Their job is to solicit as many good and high offers as possible, from the Buyer, for the Seller to consider.

It is the Buyers offer, the Buyer is the one who decides what is in the Offer.

It is the Seller who considers the Offer from the Buyer.

The Agent, like a good waiter, is the one who runs backwards and forwards between the two Principals of the deal to try and get them together.

This notion of Agents forcing Buyers to do anything, or include clauses, or not is quite outrageous and is obviously reflective of the Buyers lack of knowledge when it comes to contracts.

Doesn't really seem surprising, when the Agents are swimming in and amongst this stuff all day every day, and most Buyers are lucky to do one every 7 or 8 years.

The ol' insidious standard trick......Agents love this stuff and clueless Principals fall for it all the time.....

Agent : "in all of my 14 years I've never seen <insert whatever>"

Buyer : "Oh, OK, so it's not standard, righto, well we'll leave it off then"


That word "standard" will cost Buyers more money than any other word used.

Huge warning to everyone, be extremely wary of the word "standard", especially if you are a bunny.....and more importantly, if they quickly work out you are a bunny, in whatever field you are endeavouring to play in.

 

[Brady]

Allowed ?? I gather from your story, your client is the Buyer.

Please explain how the agent allowed your client to do anything ??

The agent signed what ?? How do agents sign clients ??

It's SA, agent negotiates with the buyer and also draws up the contract not the conveyancers or solicitor.

If your clients are adults, and legally classified as sane individuals, then they must take full responsibility for what they sign.

Could be wrong, but it very much sounds like a case of Buyers being kittens and getting their *** kicked all over the park.

One of them was first purchase.

Other was second purchase in over 15 year.

Both not very comfortable in the process and also both didn't speak English well.

 

[Dazz]

One of them was first purchase.

Other was second purchase in over 15 year.

Both not very comfortable in the process and also both didn't speak English well.

If that's the case, probably double the need to seek competent professional advice prior to putting your signature on something.


Putting your signature to something before knowing exactly what it means, in full, in minute detail....especially if it's your first time, or you haven't done it for yonks, or you're not comfortable, or you don't fully understand what is written down......is not the hallmark of a mature sensible adult who always takes 100% ownership of your decisions, both good and bad.


Let's not start making excuses for adult's decisions....it will never end, or end well.