The government should change the law regarding buying/selling

Propertyfan

In Scotland, we give an official offer with every term of sale contained therein, and once it is accepted by the seller, there are financial and legal implications for pulling out, even if it's down to the fact that your funding fell through so you no longer have any money at all.

This is exactly the same thing but with less hassle and effort than what you're proposing.

In Scotland it breaks down as thus:

Contact conveyancing solicitor.
Tell them your offer.
They fax it.
Seller accepts.
Now you may not withdraw for any reason without financial implications (compensation for time effort and money wasted by the seller).
One piece of paper, seller protected against financial loss.

Yes, I follow all of what you've written, but there are no financial implications here in the UK other than a buyer/seller wasting solicitor's fees. The buyer that pulls out of the deal knows he doesn't have to pay out money to the seller for time wasted, money wasted etc. You're basically saying

"I have a better system up here in Scotland"

and when I say

"Yes, you do, but that doesn't mean anything to us in England but my proposal of a deposit will help safe-guard the buying/selling process"

all you reply with is

"That's a dumb idea."

So how does that help English buyers/sellers? It doesn't. You're not helping the debate, you're just saying "it's better in Scotland!" Well, good for you. But it has zero bearing on this thread. If you wanna start a 'Come to Scotland and buy a home' thread - be my guest. But I don't need it posted on this thread.

fart

Propertyfan wrote: »

1) But I don't live in Scotland. So why you mentioning your system? The ENGLISH government is not going to adopt the SCOTTISH system so what is your point? 2) And I still think the deposit system I propose is a simple method of avoiding a lot of hassle.

3) As for my being extremely dim, at least I'm not named Fart. That's a great username to win over an argument. Not. :rotfl:

1) I'm not explaining myself further, you've missed the point and you're not worth my effort.

2) No it isn't. And even if it was, it's still not a good solution because better ones are already in place elsewhere and working successfully.

3) Anyone with a brain can see how poor your comprehension skills are. I have no formal law or property training and don't even really take an active interest in the laws surrounding property. I just have a brain and anyone with a few braincells batting about upstairs can see that there are far simpler solutions than the one you've proposed which can be implemented. You seem to have deciphered from this that it's stupid because you're not in a place where that solution already exists, so it's therefore worthless mentioning it. If you can't see how silly this is then i hope you never breed.

Also my name stands for Fervent Arbitrary Reactionary Theory. My acronym is a little joke, plus i wanted people to have to use a silly word when trying to argue serious points with me. I don't need to 'win' any argument with you either, it's quite clear that one of us has no idea what we're saying.

Yes, I follow all of what you've written, but there are no financial implications here in the UK other than a buyer/seller wasting solicitor's fees. The buyer that pulls out of the deal knows he doesn't have to pay out money to the seller for time wasted, money wasted etc. You're basically saying

Good lord.

You're suggesting a solution.
I'm saying 'rather than that, the way Scotland does it is good.'
You're then saying 'but i don't live in Scotland so it doesn't help does it.'
Yeh and you also don't live somewhere that has mandatory deposits.

How can you not understand this? Nobody can be that thick, i think you're just here on a wind-up.

googler

No. we're not merely saying 'That's a dumb idea', as anyone reading this thread can plainly see.

You're proposing changes to the system in E&W.

I/we are suggesting that the system may be better served by changes to make it more like the Scots system, rather than by adopting your proposals of new contracts and mandatory deposits, since the Scots system works well without such deposits. Yes, this doesn't help you at present, but neither does your suggestion until it's enacted by Parliament....

We are allowed to discuss alternatives to your suggestion, aren't we?

Battleaxe44

The England/Wales way definitely needs to be looked at but your proposal is not even a potential solution in any way shape or form.

It's a starting point to reform the system

Battleaxe44

googler wrote: »

No. we're not merely saying 'That's a dumb idea', as anyone reading this thread can plainly see.

You're proposing changes to the system in E&W.

I/we are suggesting that the system may be better served by changes to make it more like the Scots system, rather than by adopting your proposals of new contracts and mandatory deposits, since the Scots system works well without such deposits. Yes, this doesn't help you at present, but neither does your suggestion until it's enacted by Parliament....

We are allowed to discuss alternatives to your suggestion, aren't we?

Hmmmm, would the English accept anything that workswell over the border in the North?

Propertyfan

Fart - he of the smelly disposition - clearly fails to grasp the basic concept of 'good faith'. Good faith is a basic tenet of English law. The notion that two (or more) people enter into an agreement with the intention of honouring their obligations. In plain English, they don't try to be dishonest, misleading.

If you apply the concept of 'good faith' to the sale/purchase of a property in ENGLAND AND WALES and not in SCOTLAND, you require the mechanism of a deposit to ensure good faith is maintained. In plain speak -

Person#1:
"Please give me some money upfront because I'm uncertain you will honour the deal to purchase my property."

Person#2:
"That seems reasonable. Here is the deposit."

Person#1:
"Thanks. You will have it returned or deducted from the sale price on completion."

Person#2
"That sounds reasonable too."

Now Fart thinks that's a dumb concept.

In Scotland everything is wonderful and all EAs and buyers/sellers are honourable and never lie or delay or bullsh*t and even if they're a bit morally dubious don't worry, Scottish property law is there to help you out. Captain Compensation is at hand to zap these wicked people!

"I, Captain Compensation, will use my compensation ray to guarantee all property sales are smooth and transparent!"

"Oh, Captain Compensation, you're my hero! You can recompense me anytime, hunny-bunny!"

In England we don't have the marvel of Captain Compensation to help us out.

Battleaxe44

Here I go again, I have bought property in three countries and each required a deposit (non-refundable) to be paid once you say you agree to buy.

I am sitting here with the agreement for the latest property in Texas, yep further $5000,00 depost to be paid within 14 days. if the deposit is not paid, I forfeit the $1000.00 placed in bond. This is to offeset the sellers expenses.

Propertyfan

Also my name stands for Fervent Arbitrary Reactionary Theory. My acronym is a little joke, plus i wanted people to have to use a silly word when trying to argue serious points with me. I don't need to 'win' any argument with you either, it's quite clear that one of us has no idea what we're saying.

I'm surprised you didn't call yourself..

Sole Human Intelligent Thought. You could shorten it to sh*t.

fart

Propertyfan wrote: »

Fart - he of the smelly disposition - clearly fails to grasp the basic concept of 'good faith'. Good faith is a basic tenet of English law. The notion that two (or more) people enter into an agreement with the intention of honouring their obligations. In plain English, they don't try to be dishonest, misleading.

If you apply the concept of 'good faith' to the sale/purchase of a property in ENGLAND AND WALES and not in SCOTLAND, you require the mechanism of a deposit to ensure good faith is maintained. In plain speak -

Person#1:
"Please give me some money upfront because I'm uncertain you will honour the deal to purchase my property."

Person#2:
"That seems reasonable. Here is the deposit."

Person#1:
"Thanks. You will have it returned or deducted from the sale price on completion."

Person#2
"That sounds reasonable too."

Now Fart thinks that's a dumb concept.

In Scotland everything is wonderful and all EAs and buyers/sellers are honourable and never lie or delay or bullsh*t and even if they're a bit morally dubious don't worry, Scottish property law is there to help you out. Captain Compensation is at hand to zap these wicked people!

"I, Captain Compensation, will use my compensation ray to guarantee all property sales are smooth and transparent!"

"Oh, Captain Compensation, you're my hero! You can recompense me anytime, hunny-bunny!"

In England we don't have the marvel of Captain Compensation to help us out.

Once an offer is accepted, pulling out lands you a bill which has to be paid. You're made aware of this before offering. Do you really think someone with a house as an asset is going to win against a solicitor who is chasing you for their costs? LOL. Both ways give the same outcome and yours takes longer and costs more money. Maybe you should run for government?

You're a total idiot. I won't respond to your posts any longer, anyone capable of thought can see why what you've just posted is irrelevant nonsense.

Battleaxe44

fart wrote: »

Once an offer is accepted, pulling out lands you a bill which has to be paid. You're made aware of this before offering. Do you really think someone with a house as an asset is going to win against a solicitor who is chasing you for their costs? LOL. Both ways give the same outcome and yours takes longer and costs more money. Maybe you should run for government?

You're a total idiot. I won't respond to your posts any longer, anyone capable of thought can see why what you've just posted is irrelevant nonsense.

Is it necessary to start name calling because you don't agree with the proposal.

i thought we were all adults.