Vendors pull out AFTER exchange of contract

clutton_2

apart from paying your solicitors bill - i think a huge bottle of Single Malt (or whatever) would be a fabulous thank you

for him/her to have negotiated this brilliant settlement in less than 8 weeks is absolutely stunning - we all know how slow the wheels of the law grind on .....

i think a huge bottle of Champers for the WW family would also be in order !!

F_T_Buyer

Congratulations on the outcome Welshwoofs! At least it's now over.

Welshwoofs

clutton wrote: »

apart from paying your solicitors bill - i think a huge bottle of Single Malt (or whatever) would be a fabulous thank you

for him/her to have negotiated this brilliant settlement in less than 8 weeks is absolutely stunning - we all know how slow the wheels of the law grind on .....

Oh absolutely - he's been fantastic.

In fact it has been a bit odd and things really started rolling when the vendors changed solicitors and our side had submitted a report estimating consequential losses. It seemed to be a constant back and forth and then all of a sudden, bam, an agreement is reached. Of course there are still loose ends to tie up and money to change hands so it's not totally sorted out.

Someone further up asked how the settlement compared with a vendor getting the deposit if the buyer pulled out after exchange. From what I understand, these settlements are reached by calculating actual losses + consequential losses. In the case of a buyer pulling out, it could well be that the vendor seeks more money than is represented by the deposit (especially if it causes them to pull out of an exchange to purchase). In our case the vendor had to repay the deposit being held by their solicitor and come to an agreement on the sum to cover actual/consequential losses. If an agreement couldn't have been reached we'd have been forced to seek Specific Performance via the courts.

The full ins and outs of why they didn't complete appear to be down to having 'expectations beyond their means'. In short they'd reserved a new build off plan, but then failed to get a mortgage offer with a rate/LTV they considered favourable...and they didn't want to 'downgrade' their housing expectations in line with their pockets and thought they could achieve more for their own house than they had settled for.

I guess the moral of the story is that breaking contracts have penalties and it's wise to have a wishlist in line with your budget, instead of trying to realise your dreams at the expense of others

vikingaero

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Oh absolutely - he's been fantastic.

In fact it has been a bit odd and things really started rolling when the vendors changed solicitors and our side had submitted a report estimating consequential losses. It seemed to be a constant back and forth and then all of a sudden, bam, an agreement is reached. Of course there are still loose ends to tie up and money to change hands so it's not totally sorted out.

Someone further up asked how the settlement compared with a vendor getting the deposit if the buyer pulled out after exchange. From what I understand, these settlements are reached by calculating actual losses + consequential losses. In the case of a buyer pulling out, it could well be that the vendor seeks more money than is represented by the deposit (especially if it causes them to pull out of an exchange to purchase). In our case the vendor had to repay the deposit being held by their solicitor and come to an agreement on the sum to cover actual/consequential losses. If an agreement couldn't have been reached we'd have been forced to seek Specific Performance via the courts.

The full ins and outs of why they didn't complete appear to be down to having 'expectations beyond their means'. In short they'd reserved a new build off plan, but then failed to get a mortgage offer with a rate/LTV they considered favourable...and they didn't want to 'downgrade' their housing expectations in line with their pockets and thought they could achieve more for their own house than they had settled for.

I guess the moral of the story is that breaking contracts have penalties and it's wise to have a wishlist in line with your budget, instead of trying to realise your dreams at the expense of others

If everyone voted me in as Prime Minister I would pass a !!!!!! Law 2009 whereby your vendors would have to take their mum and dad down to Tescos with them to shop - because they lack common sense to form even the most basic contract.

Ian_W

vikingaero wrote: »

If everyone voted me in as Prime Minister I would pass a !!!!!! Law 2009 whereby your vendors would have to take their mum and dad down to Tescos with them to shop - because they lack common sense to form even the most basic contract.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Leave it out, mate!
Our local Tescos is busy enough already. If everyone with the "brain of a mosquito" had to take their parents with them shopping, you'd never get on the car park!

Does make you wonder whether they should have metal cutlery in the home though! :eek:

CaptainHangover

Ding dang do....

Result :T

Followed the thread from start to finish. Looking forward to you posting the link to RM if they stick it back on the market. However I dont think you will due to the army this thread has ammased! However maybe after a bottle or 2 of your favorite vino you maylet it slip onto this thread as payback (After the 30k is in the bank tho) :rotfl:

Darren09

There must be some miscommunication. I would get your solicitor to clarify everything and I'm sure things will be completed.

SingleSue

I'm not sure you have read the entire thread Darren......

ginvzt

SingleSue wrote: »

I'm not sure you have read the entire thread Darren......

I am pretty sure he didn't...

beccad

Or perhaps replying to the first couple of posts, not realising the whole saga runs to 904 posts!

WW, really pleased to hear everything has been sorted out favourably. I hope they come through with the money, and nothing untoward happens with the purchase of the property you're now going for.