Out Smarting Smart Alec Vendor's Solicitor...

[sash]

This happened to me today....

My Solicitor: Hello ...your vendor's solicitor has refused to extend your settlement date past the 4th of March and wants over $100 per till I settle. I know I can't settle till at least 12th of Mar.
Me. Okay....so have you confirmed unconditional finance?
My Solicitor: Not yet....
Me: Ok....tell the vendor's solicitor that I am not going to go unconditional on finance till he extends settlment till 12th March. He proceeds to tell me that would put in breach of contract..at somepoint....I say I didn't care. Reluctantly he says he will do my bidding but advises may of some of the consequences. Solicitor true to his word does what I want.
Agent call within 10 minutes (in a fluff): Opens by saying that vendors solictors solicitors, he (agent might lose his commission), and vendor are concerned. He tells me that the vendor does not want to start all over again. I calmly tell him the vendors solictors is off her meds as she would not move the settlement date and offer to confirm unconditional finance today. He says leave it with him.
My Solicitor call (5 minutes later): I am told magically what was previously impossible ...has now been granted.

All in a day's workl of negotiating...I would not recommend this..if you have a thin skin....

 

[D.T.]

Depends on market as well right? In some cases theyll have other buyers lined up offering more money?

 

[sash]

Maybe.....have to be prepared to take the risk...no guts no glory.....

Depends on market as well right? In some cases theyll have other buyers lined up offering more money?

 

[redwing]

The person who quickly became your biggest supporter was probably that RE agent

 

[westminster]

Whilst it seems that their Solicitor didn't push very hard on their client to extend the date if it was possible, they don't have to.

You agreed to the settlement terms when you signed the contract and you are now asking permission to change those terms. They don't have to agree and there are penalties that you agreed to if you can't.

Personally I would have ensured that I could have met the settlement terms before signing (why can't your Solicitor meet them?) and if due to some unforeseen or uncontrollable problem can't make it then I uphold my end of the agreement and pay the penalty interest.

Threatening the Vendor's sale and giving them effectively no choice but to agree with your terms which violates the agreement is not on.

I'm calling a spade, a spade but in my mind you are the one in the wrong and you should man up and pay the penalty not throw a temper tantrum and threaten to walk.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

I can see several sides of the coin. The purchasers solicitor can't settle by that date and a cunning negotiation gets the vendor to agree to move the date. Well done. The contract says differently however and the vendor may have suffered penalties themselves by moving that date. Realistically the vendor is probably in the right position here.

Threatening to bail on the finance clause is a bluff. If you do try to exit a contract under a finance clause, it's best to actual make sure that you can provide evidence that the financier mentioned in the contract has actually rejected the finance. I'm aware of at least one case in WA and possibly another in QLD where the finance was not applied for (because it wouldn't have been successful) and the purchaser lost their deposit because the finance was never actually declined.

If someone were to try use the same negotiation tactic on me, I'd simply deny the request. If they told me on the finance date that it had been declined I'd ask for a copy of the decline notice from the bank. At that point I'd keep the 10% and sell the house to someone else.

 

[Dazz]

If someone were to try use the same negotiation tactic on me, I'd simply deny the request. If they told me on the finance date that it had been declined I'd ask for a copy of the decline notice from the bank. At that point I'd keep the 10% and sell the house to someone else.

Exactly right. The Buyer wishes to change terms on the agreed contract, they have to ask, not threaten. The answer from the Vendor may be yes or no.

The Vendor's solicitor has not been a smart alec at all. They've simply read and understood the contract, and were trying to hold the Buyer to it, whilst the Buyer wriggled out of $ 800 worth of penalty interest that they were due to pay.

I would not recommend this...

No, neither would I.

DT is spot on. Depends on the market.

 

[tobe]

Its time you did that finance course Sash.....

 

[Ed Barton]

Its time you did that finance course Sash.....

Available for only $999. All done in one day.

Edit - give me a call!

 

[redwing]

I can see several sides of the coin. The purchasers solicitor can't settle by that date and a cunning negotiation gets the vendor to agree to move the date. Well done. The contract says differently however and the vendor may have suffered penalties themselves by moving that date. Realistically the vendor is probably in the right position here.

Threatening to bail on the finance clause is a bluff. If you do try to exit a contract under a finance clause, it's best to actual make sure that you can provide evidence that the financier mentioned in the contract has actually rejected the finance. I'm aware of at least one case in WA and possibly another in QLD where the finance was not applied for (because it wouldn't have been successful) and the purchaser lost their deposit because the finance was never actually declined.

If someone were to try use the same negotiation tactic on me, I'd simply deny the request. If they told me on the finance date that it had been declined I'd ask for a copy of the decline notice from the bank. At that point I'd keep the 10% and sell the house to someone else.

Is 10% the norm in WA and QLD

 

[sash]

Correct.....hilariously so....my strongest supporter.....

The person who quickly became your biggest supporter was probably that RE agent

Westminister.....no temper tantrum just strategy....go hard or go home! You should know that...we are not taking about amateurs here.

Whilst it seems that their Solicitor didn't push very hard on their client to extend the date if it was possible, they don't have to.

You agreed to the settlement terms when you signed the contract and you are now asking permission to change those terms. They don't have to agree and there are penalties that you agreed to if you can't.

Personally I would have ensured that I could have met the settlement terms before signing (why can't your Solicitor meet them?) and if due to some unforeseen or uncontrollable problem can't make it then I uphold my end of the agreement and pay the penalty interest.

Threatening the Vendor's sale and giving them effectively no choice but to agree with your terms which violates the agreement is not on.

I'm calling a spade, a spade but in my mind you are the one in the wrong and you should man up and pay the penalty not throw a temper tantrum and threaten to walk.

PT....if the vendor declines and I submit a decline letter I get my $1000 back. Maybe I might be out of pocket $300 in legals that is all. That is how it works in Qld.

Threatening to bail on the finance clause is a bluff. If you do try to exit a contract under a finance clause, it's best to actual make sure that you can provide evidence that the financier mentioned in the contract has actually rejected the finance. I'm aware of at least one case in WA and possibly another in QLD where the finance was not applied for (because it wouldn't have been successful) and the purchaser lost their deposit because the finance was never actually declined.

If someone were to try use the same negotiation tactic on me, I'd simply deny the request. If they told me on the finance date that it had been declined I'd ask for a copy of the decline notice from the bank. At that point I'd keep the 10% and sell the house to someone else.

Dazz all theortical....the trouble is people rely on contract as if they are water tight...no such thing...you should know that! Business is business...the first rule of making money is minimising risks. Really no different to politics actually....the old bait and switch.

Exactly right. The Buyer wishes to change terms on the agreed contract, they have to ask, not threaten. The answer from the Vendor may be yes or no.

The Vendor's solicitor has not been a smart alec at all. They've simply read and understood the contract, and were trying to hold the Buyer to it, whilst the Buyer wriggled out of $ 800 worth of penalty interest that they were due to pay.



No, neither would I.

DT is spot on. Depends on the market.

I only paid a $1000 deposit...that was the maximum I could lose. Even I failed and breached they would have to sue me to for damages. Lets say that there are ways to encourage people legally to stop such suits..

Is 10% the norm in WA and QLD

 

[Terry_w]

I don't get how you outsmarted the lawyer???

 

[sash]

Terry no offence but most (not all) lawyers are black and white....their legal training forces down this path.

The world unfortunately is shades of grey....this is because human emotion and the mind is the unpredictable and at times irrational. I like to observer human behaviour and will structure my response accordingly. In this case the lawyer on the vendor side tried to play hardball. She probably sold it to the vendor as look they will confirm finance and we should charge them for extra days instead of moving the settlement date. When I refused...htey had a choice to confirm the settlement date or void the contract.

I played my cards knowing the RE would get involved....put pressure on the vendor by painting a picture on losing the sale and potentially having to start over again. I knew this was a divorce settlement...guess who got emotional and put pressure on the vendor's lawyer....she should have just let this go to the keeper.....but she could not think her way of of a paper bag.

I don't get how you outsmarted the lawyer???

 

[thatbum]

Terry no offence but most (not all) lawyers are black and white....their legal training forces down this path.

Ha, well so goes the stereotype.

Except in my experience, nearly all the lawyers I know are completely the opposite - superb lateral thinkers and extremely perceptive and insightful when it comes to reading people and commercial relationships.

Which makes sense because otherwise they wouldn't be very useful lawyers.

Typically, (and in this case as well), lawyers are simply there to follow their client's instructions and don't require anything fancier than that.

 

[starter]

The lawyer probably just did exactly what the vendor instructed them to.