Vendors pull out AFTER exchange of contract

Ian_W

Welshwoofs wrote: »

When it comes down to it, the purchase was not a 'heart' purchase...

So if our current vendors were gambling on the local market and them getting more money for their house...they were right. If it went on the market now, 5 months after they accepted our offer, they could well achieve another £40k. We're adamant that any increase they can gain on their property isn't going to be at our expense..which at the moment it would be if we caved in and shelled out £40k+ for an equivalent house.

We seem to be only a short way down what will probably prove to be a long, long road.

My experience of civil cases (not contract law) is that lawyers often make arguments and seek remedies "in the alternative". In other words, such and such an action amounts to w or if the court doesn't accept that then as an alternative it amounts to x and that the appropriate remedy is y or in the alternative z. So the actions of your lawyers seem very sensible on that basis, they argue their favoured points but also have fall-back arguments.

The difficulty with the damages argument is that your long, long road is going to be expensive journey for both them and you. If it results in £40K damages and costs (possibly of a similar or even much higher magnitude) being awarded against them, it could end up bankrupting them.
No tears from me for them, they are despicable and will have brought it on themselves. However, that could leave you exposed to not getting all your costs, let alone your damages. I'm sure your lawyers are well aware of this and advising you on that aspect too.

I'm sure there is much more that you can't post publicly and like virtually everyone who has posted on this thread I continue to wish you well and offer support on your not just long but also stressful journey.

I have to say I'm certainly glad to be a spectator rather than participant!

Chinkle

I see, I guess we're all learning something from this post.

Just thinking hypothetically here, but if they were to pay you the difference and costs to buy one of these other houses, you would be living close by. What happens when you bump into them in the village shop, pub etc ....

Welshwoofs

Chinkle wrote: »

Just thinking hypothetically here, but if they were to pay you the difference and costs to buy one of these other houses, you would be living close by. What happens when you bump into them in the village shop, pub etc ....

They'll be made to feel rather uncomfortable. I was born and bred there, they've only lived there for 4 years. It's the kind of place where you're an 'outsider' even if you've lived there for 40 years

clutton_2

i think your legal advice is good - you will need to have fully researched options to put before a judge - and by doing these researches you will be seen to be the one who is willing to compromise - they clearly are not compromising.

keep smiling !

Poppy9

If you went ahead and bought one of the other houses at £40k more and continued to sue them, could you then end up in a position of them deciding to complete and that leaving you in a pickle?

I'm just wondering if house prices are rising then do you have to try to mitigate your loses by buying soon rather than later?

not_loaded

Ian_W wrote: »

…The difficulty with the damages argument is that your long, long road is going to be expensive journey for both them and you. If it results in £40K damages and costs (possibly of a similar or even much higher magnitude) being awarded against them, it could end up bankrupting them…

Which is why you’d present the case to them ahead of proceedings, making it clear what a disaster it’d be for them.

At the moment it seems clear that the vendor is imprudently hoping that WW will just drop it all and go away.

Poppy9 wrote: »

…I'm just wondering if house prices are rising then do you have to try to mitigate your loses by buying soon rather than later?

I’m pretty sure from the story so far that WW is in no position to buy at £40k or so more money.

The vendors however, have an unbelievably simple way to mitigate WW’s losses…

dfh

Very interesting story.It will become a bestseller if printed.

whathavewedone

It's irrelevant whether the sellers think they agreed too low a price or whether they did indeed agree too low a price.

The fact is that they entered into a binding contract at that price.

Welshwolfs solicitors are entirely correct in pursuing damages as well as/instead of specific performance.

These people are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that they can break the contract, sell their house for more and you can pay an extra 40k for an equivalent.

Every day that passes they owe you more money.

The case I ended up with had been through several sets of solicitors on both sides and that was part of the reason for the delay. It might save you time and money in the long run if you instruct go for the jugular litigation solicitors who also have an insolvency department. If the firm you're using specialises in conveyancing they may not be the best one to use as the case moves forward. You really will need experienced litigators to squash these people like the beetles they are!

clutton_2

""Every day that passes they owe you more money."

what a delicious thought !!!!

DVardysShadow

Poppy9 wrote: »

If you went ahead and bought one of the other houses at £40k more and continued to sue them, could you then end up in a position of them deciding to complete and that leaving you in a pickle?

I'm just wondering if house prices are rising then do you have to try to mitigate your loses by buying soon rather than later?

Probably it is a case of write to the vendor and demand specific performance within 28 days. After that, if no specific performance, I can't see that WW is committed.