House sale. Previous buyer trying to claim costs?

kiddy_guy

Harrup - No exchange = no contract formed.

Morally the OP is perhaps going to hell but legally the other party is completely stuffed and hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I'd suggest the poster above reads about gazzumping, which is not illegal.

Graham_Devon

This wasn't just gazumping though was it. It was stringing the first buyer along even AFTER a new offer was accepted.

Can blame it on other people, but seriously, we all have responsibilities, and the original buyer has been treated like something nasty on the bottom of your shoe, just because the OP believed he was selling at a "loss".

I agree, the original buyer has not a leg to stand on really. But morally, this is pretty darn low. Original buyer has simply been used throughout, as a "just incase" prop, even after the second accepted offer, the OP and the agents purposely kept the original buyer believing he/she was proceeding for their own greed. It's easy enough to give someone a ring. Feel sorry for the original buyer, and hope I never get treated in such a disgusting way.

corbyboy

harrup wrote: »

But knowingly stringing a buyer along ad nauseam, regardless of how low his offer - which YOU accepted! - MAY be regarded as misrepresentation or fraud.

I would imagine this happens thousands of times every year. House buying is a very unethical business.

And you home owners need to take a look at the defintion of the word "loss." If you bought the house 30 years ago you probably sold it for 4 times what you bought it for. You can't lose money that you never had.

harrup

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Misrepresentation or fraud? Not a chance. The OP did not enter into a contractual relationship with this buyer, so owes them nothing.

Owes them Nothing? Really? Not common decency and behaving in an honourable manner?

Is that how we are supposed to behave towards each other these days?

C'mon, for goodness sakes - the inital buyer just wants his costs refunded he isn't seeking punitive damages in the thousands. Who gives a monkeys what the LAW states - just reimburse the guys for their expenses. Why? Because it's the honourable & civil thing to do.

harrup

kiddy_guy wrote: »

Harrup - No exchange = no contract formed.

.

I know...you and BitterandTwisted are correct.

Depressing, though, wouldn't you agree?

The fact alone that there SHOULD be apropriate laws because we can't rely on peoples sense of morality is depressing.

Blarghhhhhhhh...