Backing out of house sale

moneyistooshorttomention

Must admit to being surprised a local Councillor would go in for gazumping, unless of course they weren't planning on standing again at the next election. Very easy to get that information out to potential voters at the time they were "running for office" again...

Goldiegirl

marjrie wrote: »

I think it's all happened so fast, I love where we live and don't think I would be happy moving, my husband feels the same

If you felt like that, just wondering why you wanted to move in the first place?

I'm sure the people who were due to buy your house will be angry/upset/devastated, but of course, it is your decision, and you are entitled to live where you want.

But if it wasn't for this baby, would you have moved and been happy? Also, what if you'd moved and then they'd have announced they were having a baby?

So many questions!

Davesnave

This question was posed:

" Can anyone tell me what my position is here?"

People answered accurately, once the facts were ascertained.

Apparently, some people didn't like those answers. They began to moralise, and by the time we'd reached Page 5 they seemed to be into moral philosophy.

A few were just plain rude to the OP.

Now, more personal questions are being posed, although we know as much as we need to know here.

So many questions indeed!

I'm just reminding everyone that this is a forum about House Buying Renting and Selling. If you want to discuss moral philosophy I'm sure there are forums for that.

Further, if you think that the law is an @ss, and you might well be right, rather than bleating about it on this thread, you'd do much better to go to the relevant law-makers and make representations there.

For example, you could start a petition on this site:

http://www.change.org/en-GB

Whatever you do, just leave the OP out of it now. She has provided a lively thread here and deserves not to be further cross examined or told what her moral duties are.

Cheers.

AdrianC

martan01 wrote: »

For me it's more the case that I have forked out over a grand for searches, valuations, fees, and the market has risen while the sellers are dithering.

If they pull out I lose the money I have put in and I will not be able to secure a similar property in the area I am buying for the same money.

So no it's not emotion, it's pragmatic and financial. The system as it is has me at the total mercy of a stranger and their whims.

There has to be some point before which either buyer and seller can withdraw. Clearly, it can't be the point at which the offer is accepted - because that's the point at which all the discovery process starts - survey, conveyancing. That process can produce a zillion reasons why the sale cannot progress, or why re-negotiation might be required.

An example - recently, we were looking at buying a flat to let. There are three in the building. Both the other two are let, and the one we were looking at had been let. Except... the solicitor discovered that the lease forbade the flat being let, and the landlord was unwilling to amend it. Turned out the landlord owned the other two flats. Withdrawing was mutual between us and the vendor, because it was clear it couldn't continue.

So - when IS that point at which both sides are fully agreed on the sale, and beyond which there's a penalty for withdrawing? Perhaps it should be the point at which both sides sign legally binding contracts drawn up by their solicitors, and a deposit is paid? We should probably refer to it as "exchange of contracts". Nah, it'll never catch on.

martan01

AdrianC wrote: »

There has to be some point before which either buyer and seller can withdraw. Clearly, it can't be the point at which the offer is accepted - because that's the point at which all the discovery process starts - survey, conveyancing. That process can produce a zillion reasons why the sale cannot progress, or why re-negotiation might be required.

An example - recently, we were looking at buying a flat to let. There are three in the building. Both the other two are let, and the one we were looking at had been let. Except... the solicitor discovered that the lease forbade the flat being let, and the landlord was unwilling to amend it. Turned out the landlord owned the other two flats. Withdrawing was mutual between us and the vendor, because it was clear it couldn't continue.

So - when IS that point at which both sides are fully agreed on the sale, and beyond which there's a penalty for withdrawing? Perhaps it should be the point at which both sides sign legally binding contracts drawn up by their solicitors, and a deposit is paid? We should probably refer to it as "exchange of contracts". Nah, it'll never catch on.

No need for the sarcasm. They seem to manage in Scotland, Australia, the USA and the continent, so being legally bound to an offer isn't quite as revolutionary as you are suggesting. In fact it looks like we are in the minority with our ridiculous system.

In your example perhaps the seller should have represented the facts fully when they marketed the flat. Of course you had every right to pull out, you weren't aware of the full set of circumstances. Perhaps instead an offer should be legally binding pending any undisclosed problems, a survey or search which throws up issues should allow an out. Due diligence. Also not a revolutionary concept.

Your example gives a clear example when buyers should be allowed to pull out without being penalised. Seller should have equal protection.

However how about this example:

I'm selling a house, accept an offer, spend months responding to enquiries because my hearts not really in it, the buyers spend over £1000 on searches etc, then I pull out because I don't think my cat will settle in the new area. This is fair?

AdrianC

martan01 wrote: »

In your example perhaps the seller should have represented the facts fully when they marketed the flat.

They gave the full information they had - they genuine didn't know. Perhaps their solicitor hadn't noticed when they bought, perhaps they'd just genuine forgotten.

Your example gives a clear example when buyers should be allowed to pull out without being penalised. Seller should have equal protection.

Which is exactly what they have. Either can pull out for any reason, right up until exchange.

However how about this example:

I'm selling a house, accept an offer, spend months responding to enquiries because my hearts not really in it, the buyers spend over £1000 on searches etc, then I pull out because I don't think my cat will settle in the new area. This is fair?

Does it make a difference to your perception of the scenario if it's the buyer or the seller who pulls out, because of their cat/child/elephant?

George_Michael

martan01 wrote: »

buyers spend over £1000 on searches etc, then I pull out because I don't think my cat will settle in the new area. This is fair?

It might not be fair, but it's the law and who said that the law is always fair?
It's not fair that certain rich people can avoid getting convicted for diving offences simply because they have the money to pay for a specialist "loophole" lawyer, nor is it fair that certain people avoid tax by paying for tax advisers to sort their affairs out.

It's not fair, but life isn't fair on everyone and sometimes people have to make decisions based on what is best for themselves.

martan01

Does it make a difference to your perception of the scenario if it's the buyer or the seller who pulls out, because of their cat/child/elephant?[/QUOTE]

The system currently allows flippant people to basically test the market. There is no comeback for buyers who have to spend thousands of pounds on the off chance that the sellers are serious about accepting their offer.

Equally sellers need protection from whimsical buyers, especially if they are themselves in a chain.

My argument is that there should be set legal criteria which allow a seller or buyer to pull out once an offer has been made, similar to due diligence in business. Structural or contractual issues for example, even a completion deadline.

Anything else, family, cat, relationship issues should be irrelevant and should entitle the party who has lost out to compensation.

It's easy to wail about how it's the law, and that the law isn't always fair, and even throw in a generic "rich person, corporation" rant. It doesn't change the fact that the system is wrong, there are working examples of where it is fairer and as a result, in this country it needs to be reformed.

AdrianC

martan01 wrote: »

Anything else, family, cat, relationship issues should be irrelevant and should entitle the party who has lost out to compensation.

Trouble is, "family issues" most certainly _aren't_ irrelevant. They're quite often the reason people are moving in the first place.

Lokolo

Davesnave wrote: »

I'm just reminding everyone that this is a forum about House Buying Renting and Selling. If you want to discuss moral philosophy I'm sure there are forums for that.

People are well within their rights to express their views, on this thread, or any other thread on MSE.

I personally, unless the OP has repaid the costs of the other parties, do hope it comes to bite the OP in the a***.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right. This post sums it up to the OP for me.