Chain broken down after exchange

greenface

rather be you than her. youve lost a little shes lost alot . Health is wealth

franklee

Confused here. If I've read it right, Jaff doesn't have a contract with the couple with cancer so would not be suing them anyway. He'd be suing the couple he is buying from, how they deal with that is up to them. They are in a vulnerable position as they could sue their vendor (with the cancer) but that may well be tricky especially given the people selling the empty house could sue too and there may not be enough cash to pay both sides out. Jaff should be getting his deposit back but if that deposit has been passed up the chain and the empty house seller is entitled to keep his buyer's deposit where is the cash coming from to pay Jaff back? Has everyone in the chain agreed to pass the deposits money back? Has everyone in the chain rescinded their contracts?

John_Pierpoint

wannahouse wrote: »

i can understand, when someone has just found out they only have 8 weeks left of their life to live, that they don't want to spend it packing boxes and moving to a different house- that they might want/need to stay put until they die...and i think this is one of those unusual circumstances, that ,even if YOU COULD pursue them for anything, it would be totally immoral to do so...
sometimes s**t happens, and they by far have gotten the worst end of the stick in this instance...
is there any reason though, why the people you are buying off cannot at least sell to you ,as they have promised, and sort out their own accommodation from here, as really, if you can't move in to your new house, it is because they would refuse to be put out, rather than the old lady being on her death bed! they have the power to at least make sure you aren't put out by this, and they can suck it up and deal with their part of the situation without making it roll down to you!

I just wonder how a commercial organisation would have responded in the same situation. "We all have to die some time, so why did you not have a life insurance policy?" perhaps?

There is another party in the chain of three who has been left looking stupid, what do they propose to do? Can they afford that decision?
I think you are really asking for specific performance; ie "don't really want your money, I want that house that you signed on the dotted line that you would exchange for £1,000. Presumably the property is not really unique (eg the only listed castle within a radius of 10 miles); so the real argument is likely to be what is a fair price to buy you off - in the contract there will be a daily rate of interest clocking up against the seller, but you also have a liability to try to mitigate these damages by demonstrating you are doing your best to find a suitable alternative, you cannot simply milk the situation for as long as you like.

English law has developed pretty clear rulings about subsequent damages. When I studied it at night school the case quoted was the lorry that smashed into a fire hydrant and then the fire hydrant flood put the nearby firm out of business.
Driver only responsible for immediately quantifiable damage to fire hydrant.
I think you will need to be pragmatic and accept payment of your failed costs.
All this emotional stuff is covered by "sh*t happens" (in my humble opinion).

That said, I am sure all of us here would be interested in the legal advice you are given.
Perhaps English law is going all "touchy feely" in this world of contingency fees?
The lawyers need the fees.

pimento

FireWyrm wrote: »

Generally speaking, a terminal diagnosis and a forecast of 2 months to live only happens in soap operas.

I'll tell my cousin's wife this. She was diagnosed with a brain tumour and was given two months to live a couple of weeks ago.

She'll be pleased that her life is akin to a soap opera.

pimento

FireWyrm wrote: »

I might be tempted to sue the socks off them regardless. If the story proves to be true, you can make a donation to the estate, if not, we all know what was going on dont we.

Really? You'd do this? Really? Unbelievable.

jedsonack2

I don't have a personal experience with them, but like to advice you to wait for their response.

Rain_Shadow

Jaff. wrote: »

It's too late now, the contracts have been rescinded but they weren't moving to rented accommodation. They are elderly after all

The other half decided not to go for that house anyway after the hassle we've had with it.
"Tainted" she said.

Why are people still offering the OP advice?

hazyjo

Jaff. wrote: »

It's too late now, the contracts have been rescinded but they weren't moving to rented accommodation. They are elderly after all

The other half decided not to go for that house anyway after the hassle we've had with it.
"Tainted" she said.

Elderly people can rent - why can't they do that? Has it even been suggested? They can still sell to you, surely? They just lose the house they were going to buy.

The Mrs might not have any say if the people you're buying off are told they'll have the !!!! sued off them if they don't still sell to you.

Personally, I do believe the 'story', but then maybe I'm too trusting! I know it happens, people lying about serious illnesses, but it does seem unlikely that someone would lie about that.

Plus, the OP says they were apparently in and out of hospital (presumably before exchange). Why would they have been fabricating a story like that, surely they'd have just pulled out before exchanging if they had doubts?

Jx

hazyjo

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

Why are people still offering the OP advice?

Maybe there's still advice to give!

For example, as I said above, they might HAVE to complete still on their purchase (if the couple above are advised to sell still and rent), and they can't just walk away from this because the missus has decided it's 'tainted'. They're legally obligated to buy if still possible AFAIK.

Jx

Ivana_Tinkle

This is such an extremely unusual situation that it's v unlikely any of us commenting here have any experience of it, and I do wonder whether we're hindering the OP more than helping.

Certainly it's pointless to speculate on whether the elderly couple are telling the truth or not, especially since the OP is hearing the "two months to live" diagnosis at third or fourth hand.

The OP just needs to wait and see what their solicitor can find out.