We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Anyone Sued yet from pulling out of a new build in Scotland
Options
Comments
-
I would hope a judge would accept that the builder built something of value X on day Y, but tell the builder that it as it wasn't worth X on day (Y+ 1 yr), the builder either needs to reduce the price or supply a larger home.
It is one thing for the builder to say it was worth X, but if it wasn't built to time then it was never worth X, so the builder has never supplied something that he was contracted to do.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
I would hope a judge would accept that the builder built something of value X on day Y, but tell the builder that it as it wasn't worth X on day (Y+ 1 yr), the builder either needs to reduce the price or supply a larger home.
It is one thing for the builder to say it was worth X, but if it wasn't built to time then it was never worth X, so the builder has never supplied something that he was contracted to do.
Whilst I feel sorry for the people in this position, the basic contractual position is repeated all over the country, all the time, in lots of different ways. Just as a trivial example: You order a dress, agreeing the price in advance. They get it in (which may take a while) and fashions change or you spot it more cheaply elsewhere.
There's no clear distinction between the example of the builder you gave and the example of a dress shop that I gave. The missives are always vague about completion date, because building is a complex business.
In any case, there needs to be a distinction between a building completed on time and one that's severely delayed.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
A few people pulled out of buying flats in the block I live in, so the builder remarketed them, and sold them at 15% more than the original asking price! I bet they didn't chase the person who pulled out to give them back the excess £15k (minus re-marketing costs of course)!
I think in future, they should tighten the laws on buying off plan, where the builder HAS to specify a completion date, with penalities for any delay beyond this point.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »Sneaky clauses in missives are making buyers liable for any drop in property values if they fail to complete the deal. They are also demanding interest be paid until such houses are sold on.
Sounds more like standard contract law than anything sneaky, to me. In English legal terms, anyway.
But "consumer fails to read / understand contract" isn't a good headline at the moment.
I think personally that the buyers should have demanded a time frame for completion when signing the contract. I mean it can't be that hard for a builder to say it will be finished between 1st may 2007 and 30th Nov 2007 or maybe just by 30th Nov 2007. It still gives them plenty of leeway.
On the dress example, if I bought / ordered one in the shop I'd get a timeframe from them, then if they failed to supply it in that timeframe I would either cancel the order and get a refund of any deposit or agree to an extension (which ever suited me best)0 -
I entirely agree. These open-ended contracts are too one-sided. However, there was nothing in the Daily Record article to suggest that the building had been completed late.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0
-
This is a very interesting question. We have heard that this is an option for years but as yet I have never met or heard of anyone who had actually been through the process.0
-
HI everyone, I have just read all your comments re buying off plan and then being unable to complete.....I to am in this situation where I am unable to complete as I have been unable to sell property (my deposit is therefore tied up and I cannot get a mortgage) I knew that this was on the cards and told Wimpy about it some 8 weeks ago, suggesting that we negotiate a new date and they complete someone else property that had funds avaiable, they simply would not budge and just state that they will commence charging me interest as from Friday 19.12.08 when I should complete. My solicitor just advises me that it was in the contract. The same thing happened to me in March when I bought a property at Auction, on the day of completion they advised me that there was a problem and the sale could not go ahead, but my solicitor has been chasing them since then for compensation and I still have had nothing.....whats your thoughts and any advise would be appreciated.0
-
I would hope a judge would accept that the builder built something of value X on day Y, but tell the builder that it as it wasn't worth X on day (Y+ 1 yr), the builder either needs to reduce the price or supply a larger home.
.
Contract law doesn't work like that - it's not for a judge (in England and Wales) to assess whether the original agreed contract was a good deal for one side or the other....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »Contract law doesn't work like that - it's not for a judge (in England and Wales) to assess whether the original agreed contract was a good deal for one side or the other.
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999? Curiously, although I am sure these were not intended to apply to this situation, a quick read-through makes me wonder whether these regs will be raised in these cases?
Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
I think that most builders refuse to alter their standard contracts?No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
Unfair terms (in relation, say, to the completion date) are a different kettle of fish. Whether or not the house was worth the insane amount the buyer agreed to pay is a different question....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards