Cash buyer beat me to it and I didn’t get any chance to do anything about it?

billy2shots

Let's not forget one very important point OP and others in the same situation.


You CAN still make your increased offer and the EA is duty bound to pass that higher offer to the vendor.

You will not be gazumping anyone, you are just carrying on the negotiation.

AdrianC

The seller has two people offering the same price.

One does not need a lender's valuation, so there is no risk of an argument over downvaluation.

Which would you choose?

SpiderLegs

David2710 said:

Deleted_User said:

jordan3939 said:

How is this fair??? 

Because it's the seller's property. Therefore they choose who to sell to.

I beg to differ. The practice of Gazumping is not only unethical, it's corrupt and immoral. In Scotland for instance once a seller has accepted an offer, whether in writing or verbally, the seller cannot accept an offer from someone else unless the first negotiations fall through. Just like the private rented sector this gray area needs legal reform to make the practice illegal. This nonsense about "my property my choice" is for the birds. Greedy, unprincipled so and so's. 

Your moral outrage is somewhat misplaced as there hasn’t been any gazumping going on.

the OP made an offer. It wasn’t accepted. Simple.

I would expect an ex EA to understand basic concepts such as this.

perhaps though you could expand on your thinking about why a vendor cannot choose who they sell to?

AdrianC

billy2shots said:

Let's not forget one very important point OP and others in the same situation.


You CAN still make your increased offer and the EA is duty bound to pass that higher offer to the vendor.

You will not be gazumping anyone, you are just carrying on the negotiation.

Except the OP would now be gazumping, since the other buyer's offer has been accepted.

Falafels

AdrianC said:

The seller has two people offering the same price.

One does not need a lender's valuation, so there is no risk of an argument over downvaluation.

Which would you choose?

A cash buyer may well have a survey, including a valuation survey, so there's no guarantee it won't be down valued - or that the cash buyer won't be a pain in the ****!

[Deleted User]

David2710 said:

Deleted_User said:

jordan3939 said:

How is this fair??? 

Because it's the seller's property. Therefore they choose who to sell to.

This nonsense about "my property my choice" is for the birds.

Only if you're selling birdhouses.

billy2shots

AdrianC said:

billy2shots said:

Let's not forget one very important point OP and others in the same situation.


You CAN still make your increased offer and the EA is duty bound to pass that higher offer to the vendor.

You will not be gazumping anyone, you are just carrying on the negotiation.

Except the OP would now be gazumping, since the other buyer's offer has been accepted.

Tecniqually correct but most certainly not morally. 
The OP was negotiating from the start so it's all part of intitial process.

Also if one wants to be padantic gazumping only occurs once the person has successfully bought the property. 

If one wants to be even more padantic (as some like to do on MSE) making an offer once someone else's has been accepted would be termed 'an attempt to gazump'.

In my opinion this situation doesn't fall under that for reasons I give in my first paragraph.

AnotherJoe

David2710 said:

Deleted_User said:

jordan3939 said:

How is this fair??? 

Because it's the seller's property. Therefore they choose who to sell to.

I beg to differ. The practice of Gazumping is not only unethical, it's corrupt and immoral. In Scotland for instance once a seller has accepted an offer, whether in writing or verbally, the seller cannot accept an offer from someone else unless the first negotiations fall through. Just like the private rented sector this gray area needs legal reform to make the practice illegal. This nonsense about "my property my choice" is for the birds. Greedy, unprincipled so and so's. 

This wasn't gazumping because they were still negotiating.

OP, it doesn't have to be "fair", for your definition of fair which simply appears to be "highest offer". The  seller obviously decided they preferred a cash buyer over one with a mortgage.

And I bet unlike our sceptical posted upthread that you do not get a call in a few days where the cash buyer has dropped out. I bet you dont hear again and it turns out, hey guess what there really was a cash buyer.  Though if you do get that call, I would agree with their advice their advice, go back to your original AP offer.

AnotherJoe

billy2shots said:

AdrianC said:

billy2shots said:

Let's not forget one very important point OP and others in the same situation.


You CAN still make your increased offer and the EA is duty bound to pass that higher offer to the vendor.

You will not be gazumping anyone, you are just carrying on the negotiation.

Except the OP would now be gazumping, since the other buyer's offer has been accepted.

Tecniqually correct but most certainly not morally. 
The OP was negotiating from the start so it's all part of intitial process.

Also if one wants to be padantic gazumping only occurs once the person has successfully bought the property. 

If one wants to be even more padantic (as some like to do on MSE) making an offer once someone else's has been accepted would be termed 'an attempt to gazump'.

In my opinion this situation doesn't fall under that for reasons I give in my first paragraph.

Nope.  Once you've bought a property, eg exchanged/completed you cannot be gazumped.

Gazumping is when the seller accepts a higher offer, after they have previously and non-legally-binding accepted a lower offer.

AdrianC

billy2shots said:

Tecniqually correct but most certainly not morally. 
The OP was negotiating from the start so it's all part of intitial process.

Those negotiations closed when the vendor accepted one offer.

Boot on other foot. If the OP's offer had been accepted, and the vendor then said "Actually, the other buyer came back and offered more, so ignore that acceptance. Bye.", would the OP be calling that gazumping? Yes.

Also if one wants to be padantic gazumping only occurs once the person has successfully bought the property. 

Umm, post completion? Or even post exchange...?

How's that work, then?

Or is there some theoretical period post-acceptance of the offer that you think draws a line?
Perhaps the issuance of the memorandum of sale?
Perhaps conveyancing actually starting?
Perhaps the survey or formal mortgage offer?

If one wants to be even more padantic (as some like to do on MSE) making an offer once someone else's has been accepted would be termed 'an attempt to gazump'.

Well, obvs, it's all pretty academic unless the increased offer actually works in persuading the vendor to ditch the other buyer whose offer they already accepted...

(BTW - "pEdantic" and "technically")