Vendor threatening my brother with lawyers

[Kath Russell]

All sorted

Seems to me they just didn't get it in writing from WBC immediately when they should have

All sorted now - they got their written decline from WBC and have now received their deposit money back.

The Vendor was demanding they confirm officially in writing from WBC they couldn't get finance, as per their finance clause.

 

[marg4000]

Great outcome Kath.

But a salutory lesson to all to make sure that all conditions of a contract are met.
Marg

 

[Kath Russell]

Absolutely Marg!

Thank you all for your prompt & informative replies.

 

[Perp]

All sorted now - they got their written decline from WBC and have now received their deposit money back.

Great outcome Kath.

But a salutory lesson to all to make sure that all conditions of a contract are met.

Agreed! Thanks for sharing, Kath, and for understanding that my playing "devil's advocate" was intended to be helpful - in demonstrating how the vendor may be thinking - rather than critical.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Might have been a good outcome for your brother, but it was a pretty poor outcome for the vendor. As Bargain Hunter and Tracey said, I would have kept the deposit. At least then I could have gotten back some of the money I'd lost.

 

[boods99]

Might have been a good outcome for your brother, but it was a pretty poor outcome for the vendor. As Bargain Hunter and Tracey said, I would have kept the deposit. At least then I could have gotten back some of the money I'd lost.

Sorry Mark, I must have missed something...how much money did the Vendor lose as a result of this whole scenario and how has it been quantified?

Boods

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

As others have stated boods, the vendor loses money because the property is no longer on the market and they have potentially lost opportunities to sell because of it.

They now have to put the property back on the market - which again costs them money - because Kath's brother didn't bother to read the contract he signed. It's not quantifiable, but I would hazard a guess that the vendor is out a fair bit more than 2 grand because of this. He wouldn't have been able to buy the property, but who's to say a new buyer wouldn't have been found in the time Kath's brother and sister in law took to get the letter from Westpac?

Edit: I can't believe people think this is a 'great outcome'. Let's have a look at the situation:

- the people who didn't fulfill their contractual obligation walk away scot free
- the vendor is now out of pocket financially, has to put the property back on the market, leaving them even more out of pocket, deal with the stress of now trying to find another buyer and all the rest of the crap that comes with selling a house.

Can someone please explain to me how this is a 'great outcome'? How would y'all feel if the vendor was your brother or sister? Would you think it was a 'great outcome' then? What if the vendor was relying on the house being sold in order to enable other pieces to fall into place and now that this has happened, those pieces are now scattered and causing grief? It's a possibility.

 

[Dazz]

Can someone please explain to me how this is a 'great outcome'?

As you know Mark, our legal system is an adversarial one.

Normally there are two parties to a normal contract. Those parties have directly conflicting terms usually, eg : a high price is good for vendor and bad for buyer. a low price is bad for vendor and good for buyer.

This notion of "win-win" that people harp on about is all bollocks IMO. If everyone is having a win, then one side ain't pushing their interests hard enough.

Anyway, as you can see, in little Somersoft cyberworld, all is dictated by the initial question / whinge from the original poster. OP wanted brother to get out contract scot free. Brother, despite being like most people, not reading / understanding contract does indeed get out contract obligations scot-free. Hence good outcome.

Start wearing the Vendor hat and it's a **** outcome.....but then with two parties to most contracts, if it's good for one, it's always **** for the other.

Life's opinions and rants always comes down to what type of hat you are wearing at the time.

 

[Perp]

It's not quantifiable, but I would hazard a guess that the vendor is out a fair bit more than 2 grand because of this.

Yes. I'm a little surprised that other property investors don't see that a lost sale costs a lot more than $2K. Perhaps they're buy and holders who've not yet been vendors?

Anyway, as you can see, in little Somersoft cyberworld, all is dictated by the initial question / whinge from the original poster. OP wanted brother to get out contract scot free. Brother, despite being like most people, not reading / understanding contract does indeed get out contract obligations scot-free. Hence good outcome.

Start wearing the Vendor hat and it's a **** outcome.....

Spot on again, Dazz...

 

[boods99]

As others have stated boods, the vendor loses money because the property is no longer on the market and they have potentially lost opportunities to sell because of it.

They now have to put the property back on the market - which again costs them money -

Mark, the property was never taken off the market in the first place. There was no "lost sale". The contract was not unconditional, therefore can be continued to be marketed. A good REA would have continued to do so, as this scenario is not uncommon. Should the contract have been unconditional - very different kettle of fish.
When you "hazard a guess" that this has cost the Vendor more than $2000, what do you base that guess on...or is it just that...a guess?

For the record, I do not think this is a win/win or a "great outcome" or whatever others are alluding to...I'm merely outlining the fact that there has been no loss on the Vendor's side as any perceived loss cannot be quantified.

Boods

 

[wylie]

Without re-reading the whole thing, the agent pushed to name a bank on the document, not the purchaser (even though the purchaser signed it, which they should not have done, but not everyone is aware of the ramifications).

For those who say an agent cannot fill in a contract, doesn't this mean the agent did the wrong thing?

It is also not like the purchaser made NO effort to get finance. They tried the "contract" bank (verbally?) and another of the big four and got two declines. I could understand the vendor's frustration if no effort was made.

I also agree that a good agent would continue marketing the house until it goes unconditional. This is what I would expect as a vendor.

 

[Dazz]

Without re-reading the whole thing, the agent pushed to name a bank on the document, not the purchaser (even though the purchaser signed it, which they should not have done, but not everyone is aware of the ramifications).

For those who say an agent cannot fill in a contract, doesn't this mean the agent did the wrong thing?

wylie,

For someone who boasts they have been buying property for 30 years and have an extremely successful mother who was an agent and investor for the last 40 or 50 years, you sure do come up with some newbie questions.


1. The agent has no authority whatsoever. When it comes to formally transacting real estate, all agents are forced to stand there like spare ****** at a wedding, cos they are completely irrelevant and powerless. C'mon, your Mum should of let you in on that little secret by now.

2. Nothing the agent says or does, or even writes counts for jack squat, due to point # 1. Certainly as a Buyer you cannot rely on any of it. All of the paperwork is plastered with warnings saying so.

3. The agent has no signing ability, due to point # 1.

4. The agent has no responsibility, due to point # 1.

5. The agent can almost never get into trouble, due to point # 4, which is due to point # 1.


---------

As you've said in post # 24, this nonsense is all just anonymous opinion based gumpf on the internet. If you really want to know, spend ten G asking someone qualified. The schmoozies on here wouldn't not **** from clay.

 

[boods99]

1. The agent has no authority whatsoever. When it comes to formally transacting real estate, all agents are forced to stand there like spare ****** at a wedding, cos they are completely irrelevant and powerless.


---------

As you've said in post # 24, this nonsense is all just anonymous opinion based gumpf on the internet. If you really want to know, spend ten G asking someone qualified. The schmoozies on here wouldn't not **** from clay.

In regards to your point 3) Dazz, everywhere apart from Vic and ACT, the agent is in fact allowed to sign on behalf of the buyer under certain circumstances (auction) as long as they do so immediately after the auction.

Just sayin...

 

[wylie]

For those who say an agent cannot fill in a contract, doesn't this mean the agent did the wrong thing?

So sorry Dazz.... that I forgot to put the sarcasm smiley after that sentence .

 

[wylie]

For someone who boasts they have been buying property for 30 years and have an extremely successful mother who was an agent and investor for the last 40 or 50 years, you sure do come up with some newbie questions.

See post above re sarcasm smiley. I NEVER said my mother was an agent and investor for the last 40 or 50 years. It is 30 years for me and about 34 years for my parents. Perhaps check your facts before opening your mouth (or fingering your keyboard).


As you've said in post # 24, this nonsense is all just anonymous opinion based gumpf on the internet. If you really want to know, spend ten G asking someone qualified. The schmoozies on here wouldn't not **** from clay.

Don't forget you also are an anonymous "schmoozie".

 

[Kath Russell]

Sold!

The vendor has accepted an offer from someone else in the last couple of days & it's off the market again. There's the win-win.

 

[kathryn d]

Glad it worked out for your brother Kath.


Here, when a REA writes up an offer and financing is conditional, it is also stated on the contract the interest rate. We may be able to obtain financing, but if it is more than xxx%, we do not need to accept that.

I would be angry if the REA stopped showing a property, even with an accepted offer. We all know things can go wrong, and it is nice to have a back up plan.