We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Move from hell, purchasers failed to complete HELP!
Comments
-
And are we really talking about David Miliband here? I thought the clue was Kurt?0
-
<chuckle> Having seen the name the OP mentioned before they (sensibly) removed it... No, it wasn't David Miliband! (and "Kurt" isn't a great clue)Landofwood wrote: »And are we really talking about David Miliband here? I thought the clue was Kurt?0 -
Landofwood wrote: »And are we really talking about David Miliband here? I thought the clue was Kurt?
I think David Miliband was discounted as being the identity of the person who caused all the misery in the chain. The OP used 'Kurt' as some sort of clue to the real identity of this person ,but no one on this thread has actually managed to identify and name the person in question. Can anyone who saw the OP's post from earlier today where they may have actually named this person give the rest of us any more clues???"You were only supposed to blow the bl**dy doors off!!"0 -
0 -
I can't believe it, I missed who it was!!0
-
-
Surely the name or clues to the name were removed for a reason. I don't think it's right for people to be desperately trying to guess as all that will do is add to a rumour mill. Rumours and gossip do not benefit anyone. Ever.Father Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These
(he points to some plastic cows on the table) are very small; those (pointing at some cows out of the window) are far away...
:D:D0 -
This is the scenario as I understand it.
Megamonty is #4 out of 5 in the chain.
#1 fails to complete, stalling the chain.
Eventually #1 finds the funds to complete and the chain can move again.
Maegamonty's vendors, #5, now decide to play hardball and demand compensation cash up front or they will refuse to complete. Incidentally , I do not think they were allowed to do this, remuneration for delay is separate to the contract of sale, and should be sought after completion. If they had frustrated the contract further then it is they who would have been liable for action for failing to complete.
Nevertheless, Monty pays them and everyone moves. The only people who are out of pocket now are the Monties. Buyer #3 moves into Monty's house, doesn't get sued and probably thinks they are off the hook.
Buyer #2 moves into #3’s house, doesn't get sued and thinks she's off the hook.
Buyer #1 probably isn't being sued now by the only person who can sue him, buyer #2. He is however happily ignoring Megamonty's letters, a man he neither knows nor has any legal obligation to.
Is this about right or am I shooting from the hip?0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »This is the scenario as I understand it.
Megamonty is #4 out of 5 in the chain.
#1 fails to complete, stalling the chain.
Eventually #1 finds the funds to complete and the chain can move again.
Maegamonty's vendors, #5, now decide to play hardball and demand compensation cash up front or they will refuse to complete. Incidentally , I do not think they were allowed to do this, remuneration for delay is separate to the contract of sale, and should be sought after completion. If they had frustrated the contract further then it is they who would have been liable for action for failing to complete.
Nevertheless, Monty pays them and everyone moves. The only people who are out of pocket now are the Monties. Buyer #3 moves into Monty's house, doesn't get sued and probably thinks they are off the hook.
Buyer #2 moves into #3’s house, doesn't get sued and thinks she's off the hook.
Buyer #1 probably isn't being sued now by the only person who can sue him, buyer #2. He is however happily ignoring Megamonty's letters, a man he neither knows nor has any legal obligation to.
Is this about right or am I shooting from the hip?
The structure of the chain and "who sues who" has been discussed in-depth over the 15 pages in this thread. I'd be surprised if the OP "didn't get it".0 -
maninthestreet wrote: »Can anyone who saw the OP's post from earlier today where they may have actually named this person give the rest of us any more clues???
Given I haven't got a scooby where they got Kurt from, not sure any other 'clues' would help:D0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.7K Life & Family
- 256.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards