Vendors pull out AFTER exchange of contract

penguingirl

Good luck! We will be waiting with baited breath...

clutton_2

""Interesting that they have changed solicitors." - folks sometimes do this when they are presented with the bill ......

Troubled_Joe

silvercar wrote: »

Interesting that they have changed solicitors.

Either they dumped the old one because they didn't like what he was saying or he dumped them.

More likely that they dumped him because they didn't agree with his advice.

Clients who (despite advice to the contrary) proceed with litigation with little hope of success are excellent fee income and unlikely to be dropped unless their instructions would cause a breach of a professional obligation.

barnaby-bear

silverchair wrote: »

Its actually at the top of google search engine.

I wonder if they read about the surveillence and the surprise visits yet... they'll be tweaking their net curtains all weekend waiting for the knock.
:rotfl:

Strapped

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I wonder if they read about the surveillence and the surprise visits yet... they'll be tweaking their net curtains all weekend waiting for the knock.
:rotfl:

I know you're joking, but WW must not do anything that puts her in a bad light now - no contact except through solicitors so as not to give any ammo to the vendors.

LandyAndy

silvercar wrote: »

Interesting that they have changed solicitors.

Either they dumped the old one because they didn't like what he was saying or he dumped them.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

barnaby-bear

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

More likely that they dumped him because they didn't agree with his advice.

Clients who (despite advice to the contrary) proceed with litigation with little hope of success are excellent fee income and unlikely to be dropped unless their instructions would cause a breach of a professional obligation.

Or they are pursuing the original solicitor for failing to advise them of implications of this farce? Where there's blame, there's a claim mentality.... no personal responsibility to contract mentality, maybe they are now blaming the solicitor....

ILW

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

Clients who (despite advice to the contrary) proceed with litigation with little hope of success are excellent fee income and unlikely to be dropped unless their instructions would cause a breach of a professional obligation.

Only if they have the money to pay.

Strapped

ILW wrote: »

Only if they have the money to pay.

I agree. Maybe they haven't paid for the solicitor's services to date (bit like the EA bill perhaps) so the solicitor dropped them.

Welshwoofs

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I wonder if they read about the surveillence and the surprise visits yet... they'll be tweaking their net curtains all weekend waiting for the knock.
:rotfl:

lol it's a nice thought....

However we've been squeaky clean all the way down the line and as flexible as possible so we're going to continue with that line. There's been no informal communication whatsoever and it's going to stay that way - we're putting all communication in the hands of the solicitor and taking his advice on board.