Vendors pull out AFTER exchange of contract

GracieP

GDB2222 wrote: »

Would I make someone bankrupt for £20k? Not me, but your view appears to be different, and lots of people obviously agree with you! So, I'm a softy, then.

But WW would not be making them bankrupt, their own carelessness would. If they couldn't be bothered to take care of their own financial well-being it's certainly not WW's responsibility to care about them.

It may be possible that going to court will not be the best route for WW to take. It's possible that she could go to court but not have an outcome that justifies the cost and stress. That is certainly worth considering before they decide what to do. It's all very well for people here to recommend taking them to court, but sometimes what's morally/legally right and what's right for the person in the situation are not the same thing. Sometimes, much as it galls us, walking away is the best course of action.

It's not about being soft or hard. It's about the fact that WW has a hard decision to make and has enough to deal with trying to work out what is the best thing for her and her family. She doesn't need to be made to feel as if she has should take responsibility for selfish, careless people who won't take care of themselves.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Court hearing:

Judge: So why did you not complete on selling your house?

Vendors: I wanted to buy a new build, but the banks wouldn't lend me all the money I asked for!
Judge: did you not think of buying something else?
Vendor: No I wanted that house, its has four bedrooms and is completely new.
Judge: so if I rule in favour, what are you going to do?
Vendor: Sell the house to someone else for more money, so that I can complete on the new build, that way my children won't be home less.
Judge: why not set your sights a little lower, you can buy another house so your children won't be homeless
Vendor: but I want this house!!!:rolleyes:

The only one losing out will be you. As surely as apples are apples they are going to sell this house to someone else, its too remote for them and they want out, no matter what.

AMD

And NO they won't be bankrupt they will have the money from the sale of the house.

picardygirl

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

Multi-track litigation (as this will most likely be) is incredibly time-consuming, lengthy and stressful and only you can put a value on the effects of that on you and your family. Costs will be considerable and unless you have BTE insurance or have a conditional fee arrangement of some kind you will need to fork out this money on an ongoing basis.

Even if you are successful and obtain a costs order (even one for indemnity costs) then it will not cover the entirety of your legal costs and you will still be out of pocket to a certain degree.

Your case undoubtedly seems strong but even here there is no guarantee of success and there is a lot to be said for achieving a settlement on your terms at an early stage.

..... i know its easy for me to sit here and give my opinion, and WW i really feel for you, we had a buyer pull out on day of exchange and that was bad enough, given the position your in, ie, not reliant on sale of your property, i would hang on and go for it x good luck x

Although you may feel a lot of resentment towards the Defendants (and rightly so) don't let it cloud your judgment in terms of the financial realities of the situation. Sad as it may be, conducting civil litigation purely as a quest for justice and what is "right" is rarely sensible.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth and I hope it's of use. Best of luck with however you decide to proceed.

This is basically saying that someone can exchange contracts and not complete and be allowed to get away with it .......

"what is "right" is rarely sensible" - its right that the vendors exchanged contracts and have failed to completed, now that is simple wrong! No other words for it !

Surely this is not who is about who is right or wrong, the vendors are in the wrong period!

Dinah93

The vendors clearly do have some equity though as they were expecting to pay a deposit on the new build, just not a 25% deposit. Therefore they do have some equity, and if they are on interest only on their current house, how did they expect to pay for a mortgage on a bigger place? They are not as on the edge as they are trying to appear, it's simply back to that 'not favourable' term rather than actually being 'unaffordable'.

And you have absolutely no reason to feel guilty, they screwed you and your family over, you did not ask for this to happen, you are simply reacting to their actions.

Troubled_Joe

picardygirl wrote: »

This is basically saying that someone can exchange contracts and not complete and be allowed to get away with it .......

"what is "right" is rarely sensible" - its right that the vendors exchanged contracts and have failed to completed, now that is simple wrong! No other words for it !

Surely this is not who is about who is right or wrong, the vendors are in the wrong period!

That is not what I'm saying at all.

You have both misread and misquoted my post and your post makes very little sense.

picardygirl

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

That is not what I'm saying at all.

You have both misread and misquoted my post and your post makes very little sense.

Trouble Joe, sorry you've read my post in that way, certainly didnt intend to cause offence. But the way i read your post was to say if WW was to go in the way of the courts they could end of out of pocket - thats why i made the comment, ..... someone can exchange contracts and not complete and be allowed to get away with it ....

Strapped

Call me bloody minded, but in WW's position I'd be more than happy to make the vendors bankrupt for £20, never mind £20k!

Troubled_Joe

picardygirl wrote: »

Trouble Joe, sorry you've read my post in that way, certainly didnt intend to cause offence. But the way i read your post was to say if WW was to go in the way of the courts they could end of out of pocket - thats why i made the comment, so does exchange mean anything?

No worries, just me being irritable.

I'm unfortunately pretty sure they will end up out of pocket whichever way they go.

Whilst the underlying principle of remedies in contract law is to return the innocent party to the position they would have been in but for the breach, this is rarely the case when costs are considered.

An order for costs to be assessed on a standard basis will leave them up to 35% of their costs out of pocket potentially and even an order for indemnity costs will probably give a small shortfall of 5-10%.

Whilst I agree that this is unfair it is an unfortunate reality of our civil justice system.

Similarly, if settlement is acheived now, it is unlikely to be on the terms of the OP's pre-action costs to date being paid. If mediation is used and is successful there is no guarantee of an agreement on payment of the costs of the mediation. As an aside, the last mediator I used (albeit on a relatively high value claim) charged £6,000 plus vat for the day.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

THEY ARE NOT GOING BANKRUPT!!!!

They just can't afford the house they wanted to buy. The banks are willing to lend them money, but not as much as they wanted. If they were not financially viable no bank would touch them. I'd be interested to know how much they wanted to borrow and how much they actually got, and where in London they were hoping to buy! This would give us a clearer idea of how much money is involved. And why on earth did they exchange before having all their ducks lined up. It don't make no sense.....

YES it does- they bought OFF PLAN, that means they committed themselves last year, maybe had a mortgage offer then, which ran out. They had to re-apply for another, but by then prices for new builds had dropped like a stone BUT they were probably tied into their the original sale price with the developer. I suspect that the developers are also pushing for them to complete as well. As they feel they had undersold their property, they want to get out of the deal as soon and as cheaply as possible and sell for a much high price in order to complete the developer.

As it stands both parties will be issuing the Vendor with a notice for lack of completion, but I think they fear the Developers more than they fear Welshwoofs (Welshwoofs has a heart) the Developers have none.

Good Luck

AMD

Strapped

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

As an aside, the last mediator I used (albeit on a relatively high value claim) charged £6,000 plus vat for the day.

That is an exceptionally high cost for mediation.