Solicitor Changed Contract After Signing!

DRP

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Precisely. If this was the other way around, then I'd be getting told its my mates fault for not reading "the small print" so to speak.

Its funny how when a consumer messes up for not reading the wording and signing a contract, he gets crucified but when the fat cats fudge up its all about morality and honesty. Gimme a break. As DVS said, it is what's written that counts.

Now I am familiar that some contracts (non-housing area) can be changed after signing but I needed to find out what options he has:

1. Accepting the mistake and paying the extra 6K
2. Not accepting the mistake and therefore rendering the contract void
3. Not accepting the mistake and attempting to recover the excess amount a different way.

Not really sure about property law.

Ignoring the moral viewpoint I agree with you.

It was a bit rash of your mate to go out and spend his 'winnings' though!!

sho_me_da_money

penguingirl wrote: »

Did your friend (or their solicitors) take a photocopy of the contract before it was amended?

Now this is the Achilles heel - NO!! In my opinion he is fubarred without the original contract.

The solicitor is actually stating that the amended contract is the only contract they had - talk about honesty and morality there - lying *******.

In all honesty, he was going to go ahead with the sale irrespective of whether he could recover the 6K or not. But the fact is that they messed up and blatantly changed the original contract.

Personally, I dont think he has a leg to stand on.

sho_me_da_money

DRP wrote: »

Ignoring the moral viewpoint I agree with you.

It was a bit rash of your mate to go out and spend his 'winnings' though!!

He's stuffed either way.

As per my last post, I just asked if he has a copy of the original contract and neither he nor his wife has it.

Agree with you on the winnings comment - I would have waited until I was in the house before going on spends but I guess a signed contract was good enough for him to go on a spending spree (which is something quite a few people would do to be fair)

Game Over me thinks.

Lessons learned:

1. Take a copy of the contract
2. Appoint your own independent solicitor
3. Dont jump the gun and start spending
4. Solicitors are lying Ba****ds (not all but most)

sho_me_da_money

jjlandlord wrote: »

Well, what exactly is written?
Seems to me that a trail probably exists that 5k is what was agreed, and that no copy of the contract showing 11k can be produced.

So again, seems to be a lot of trouble, and potential expenses, to rectify a non-mistake and nonexistent loss.

- No £5K was verbally agreed.
- All documentation stated £11K.
- All documentation was signed by all parties at £11k
- When requesting a copy of the contract, he was given one showing the X through £11K (no signature/date next to this mistake)

So in some ways he still has a chance as he has not signed nor accepted the X mistake.

DRP

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

- No £5K was verbally agreed.
- All documentation stated £11K.
- All documentation was signed by all parties at £11k
- When requesting a copy of the contract, he was given one showing the X through £11K (no signature/date next to this mistake)

So in some ways he still has a chance as he has not signed nor accepted the X mistake.

It can't be legal to unilaterally modify a contract after it has been signed, surely?

Jamie_Carter

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

No, because that is being dishonest and lying (if there was no neck pain)

We are moving away from the topic at hand. This isn't a discussion about being moral or honest. This is an issue surrounding the legality of what has occurred.

I appreciate your personal views regarding what is right and wrong etc. but this comes down to contractual law and I was hoping if anyone could offer their views on this particular matter.

Are you making this up???

Richard_Webster

As far as the builder is concerned the solicitor had ostensible authority to alter the contract so the binding contract only provided for a £5K incentive.

However the solicitor should have told his client that he was making the alteration (or should have made it before it was sent to client for signature). If he didn't then the client has some complaint.

However I am not sure that OP would be able to say that the solicitor should pay out for the money spent by OP in the belief that he had successfully taken advantage of the builder's solicitor's mistake. I suspect that the solicitor's negligence insurers would argue that he should have checked the point himself, as it was fairly obvious that it was a try on/clerical error and someone in his position should not have assumed that he made just made an extra £6K. I think they would only offer a token amount for inconvenience.

sho_me_da_money

Richard_Webster wrote: »

As far as the builder is concerned the solicitor had ostensible authority to alter the contract so the binding contract only provided for a £5K incentive.

However the solicitor should have told his client that he was making the alteration (or should have made it before it was sent to client for signature). If he didn't then the client has some complaint.

However I am not sure that OP would be able to say that the solicitor should pay out for the money spent by OP in the belief that he had successfully taken advantage of the builder's solicitor's mistake. I suspect that the solicitor's negligence insurers would argue that he should have checked the point himself, as it was fairly obvious that it was a try on/clerical error and someone in his position should not have assumed that he made just made an extra £6K. I think they would only offer a token amount for inconvenience.

That last paragraph need not apply as he is DEFINITELY NOT using that argument. He has spent the money and accepts he jumped the gun too soon. This is not the angle he using to recovering the money.

Everything above it should have happened but did not. The change after the contract being signed was not communicated. It was a blatent case of X'ing it and saying "here you go".

Now the part I am interested in is "If he didn't then the client has some complaint"

Please can you elaborate on complaint and what options he has?

Thanks,

sho_me_da_money

DRP wrote: »

It can't be legal to unilaterally modify a contract after it has been signed, surely?

They did bud. That is exactly what they did and he was a little shocked at how blatent it was. There was no tact applied to the rectification of their mistake. It was a case of :

- Oh we signed and made a mistake
- Lets mark an X and not tell him
- Here you go sir, here is a copy of your contract

Jamie_Carter

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

They did bud. That is exactly what they did and he was a little shocked at how blatent it was. There was no tact applied to the rectification of their mistake. It was a case of :

- Oh we signed and made a mistake
- Lets mark an X and not tell him
- Here you go sir, here is a copy of your contract

But [STRIKE]you[/STRIKE] sorry, your friend had noticed, and were going to take advantage of the situation, until it backfired??