Vendor will only sell if he can buy house back - is that legally enforceable?

GeorgeDawes_2

The vendor was acting really weird off the bat. Has owned the property for 30 years, wouldn't do viewings without being there, wouldn't give the estate agent a set of keys. But we really liked the house so offered the asking price, which was accepted. He is lucky to get the offer he did from cash buyers like us.

Now the vendor says he will only sell if a clause is written into the sale, stipulating that he will have right of first refusal if we wish to sell the place in future. This was not written on the property description. The agent says the guy has trouble "letting go". The guy is sounding like a time waster who needs a psychiatrist.

Is this actually enforceable? It seems like a ridiculous impractical demand. What would happen if we sold it and didn't let him know?

glentoran99

GeorgeDawes wrote: »

The vendor was acting really weird off the bat. Has owned the property for 30 years, wouldn't do viewings without being there, wouldn't give the estate agent a set of keys. But we really liked the house so offered the asking price, which was accepted. He is lucky to get the offer he did from cash buyers like us.

Now the vendor says he will only sell if a clause is written into the sale, stipulating that he will have right of first refusal if we wish to sell the place in future. This was not written on the property description. The agent says the guy has trouble "letting go". The guy is sounding like a time waster who needs a psychiatrist.

Is this actually enforceable? It seems like a ridiculous impractical demand. What would happen if we sold it and didn't let him know?

why is it impractical? could be to your benefit a quick sale if needed

Annisele

I don't think it matters whether it's enforceable or not - it strongly suggests the guy doesn't want to sell. If you're in England or Wales, that likely means he'll want for you to pay for surveys etc and then pull out.

divadee

You could say yes to it and stipulate that if you were to sell he has a week to give you a decision. A quick sale for you that way. You won't have lost anything other than a week and then go and see the estate agents after that week.

AnotherJoe

I'd simply walk away.
Too many potential situations that could leave you open to legal issues when you did come to sell even if you were OK with this clause. Which IMO is barking mad. And might indicate some issues after sale and also him more likely than the average seller to pull out last minute after you've spent a lot of money on the process. So I'd pull out now even if he dropped the clause.

eddddy

There's nothing to stop you/him having this type of clause, but it's probably not a good idea.

In fact, there is a similar requirement when freeholders sell the freehold of a block of flats. The leaseholders have to have first refusal.

But it gets very messy...

For example, the clause may be that when you sell, if somebody makes an offer, you must give the old owner 14 days to match that offer. But that means your prospective buyer has to wait 14 days to see what happens.

And, will you be required to pass that clause on when you sell?

davidmcn

In theory it's enforceable (against you, that is - he'd need to accept that it wouldn't apply to your mortgage lender). Depends also what he means by "first refusal" - if it's giving him a vague opportunity to make an offer before you put it on the open market then fair enough, if it's a more formal right of pre-emption (where you are on the verge of exchanging contracts then have to give him a chance to decide whether or not to buy on identical terms) then that will put off buyers.

In any event it doesn't sound reassuring about how the transaction will go.

GeorgeDawes_2

glentoran99 wrote: »

why is it impractical? could be to your benefit a quick sale if needed

You're wrong. What makes a quick sale in London is someone coming along with the cash. He's unlikely to have the cash sitting around to buy it at some random point in the future just when we happen to sell it.

It's restrictive because it means we can't just sell it to a member of our immediate family if we wanted. It's also not clear whether he could name his price, it's likely it would sell for much less if it doesn't go on the open market.

its a totally unreasonable demand. So the guy has an emotional attachment to the house. I have an emotional attachment to my car. So I either wouldn't sell it or I'd man up and take the money if I was offered a good price.

He can't have his cake and eat it, you either sell something or you don't, it works that way with other commodities like art, cars etc esp if someone is paying over 700k for it!!

Marvel1

Strange one, why even bother selling?

J_i_m

Personally I'd loose all interest in a property if the vendor was trying to impose clauses like that. It has the potential to be a real irritant and just think if you buy their house then the likelyhood is that they know where to find you and harass you.

GeorgeDawes_2

cjdavies wrote: »

Strange one, why even bother selling?

Yup I think it's BS but the estate agent is playing along with the vendor, it's a sellers market in London and he wants to retain the instruction. If the agent had any sense then he would knock this on the head at the start and advise the vendor that selling property doesn't work like that. All that happens otherwise is the vendor wastes the money and time of all involved, including the agent.