On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:46:18 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:
In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:
In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
What do you intend to do if someone offers to buy your English house
at the asking price, and a week later someone else offers you a thousand
more, cash purchase?
I refuse it, simple as that. You obviously have no concept of an
Englishman's word is his bond. Avarice is a deadly sin, you know.
What are you going to do when your buyer comes back somewhat late in the
deal and revises his/her offer downwards?
Then the buyer is the one who has reneged on the deal, not me. They
have effectively terminated their offer, thus permitting me to open up
the market again.
So you start again with another buyer,
'Fraid so! The first buyer has welshed on the deal as far as I'm
concerned. Were I to accept his revised (lower) offer, who's to say he
won't come back a week or two later and try it on again?
who subsequently reneges on the
deal aswell, (believe me, it happens time and time again), - how long do
you hold fast before selling and getting on with your life?
Until I find *the* buyer who keeps to the letter of the agreement to
purchase (I assume a buyer has to put his moniker on *some*thing to
assert his genuineness).
It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.
Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.
Of course it is, and of course they would. However, there are many
checks a buyer should make before committing legally, so it is rare for
a buyer to be prepared to do that, thus allowing the time for mind
changing, or shenanigans.
Like I said, it would sort out the time wasters.
It is just a function of the way we sell houses in this country.
So? Are we supposed to live with the system like it is for the rest of
time?
No, and yes g Until someone comes up with a better way which is
accepted as "how it is done", or the law changes to force the issue.
But what would be a better system?
Keep the system as it is, i.e. an asking price is stated, not an
Offers Over price. But add a legal commitment to purchase, exactly as
happens at auction, by demanding a deposit from the buyer when an
offer is made.
In Scotland, nobody is forced to bid for a house, and they only have to
bid what they want - one mans meat and all that.
Of course, no one is forced to do anything, but I maintain that one
should know the price the vendor is willing to accept so that the
buyer knows where he stands and can fairly compare similar properties
This is what generally happens in England, and it is still far from
perfect, or even good.
Better than the Scottish system, however.
In your various posts, are you suggesting that there is one particular
value for any particular house? If so, who polices it?
Of course I am not! You're now trying to invent scenarios in order to
bolster your argument, which must therefore be pretty weak.
No I am not! You proposed the scenario which suggests that sellers
should have a price which is close to the "value" of the property - I am
merely asking how the "value" should be determined?
But you were the one who suggested the idea of having some external
body to police, or dictate, a price! No, it is entirely up to the
vendor *what* price he asks for at the end of the day, but I maintain
that the price stated must be the actual price the vendor wants. This
is not rocket science! If I stuck an ad in the paper to sell a piano,
saying "offers accepted", and you came by and made an offer and I
said, no, sorry, it's not high enough, bye! And you were not allowed
to make a higher offer, well, you'd feel pretty put out, wouldn't you!
I dont really have an argument which I am trying to support - I have
questions regarding an argument which you are trying to support.
Or are you saying that there is a price band for every house - if so,
who decides, and where do you draw the line?
Ditto.
Ditto g
Lets say I genuinely believe, (perhaps naively), that my house is worth
£100,000, and I set a price of Offers Over £90,000. If someone offers me
£200,000, am I to refuse it and tell them that I cannot take more than
say, £110,000?
If you have already agreed with another buyer to accept his offer
nearer your £100K valuation, then yes, you should refuse it if you
want to sleep at night with a clear conscience. That first buyer who
is willing to pay YOUR price, not someone else's valuation, was doing
so in the spirit of fair play and a level playing field, and if you
renege on the deal, ask yourself, who has the moral high ground.
Firstly, where did I say that I had agreed to sell at £100K? I was
considering the Scottish system which you find fundamentally flawed, and
I had "asked" for Offers Over £90K. I then received several offers, one
of which was £200K, maybe some others were near £200K. In your scenario,
I shouldnt take £200K, and I shouldnt take too much over my £90K.
Secondly - You cannot tell me that if someone genuinely offered you
£300,000 for your house, and it was serious, and they had the money, you
would refuse? Or would you? (I know it is unlikely to happen, but
imagine what you would do if it did). You havent agreed another offer in
this scenario.
Well if I haven't agreed another offer, then there isn't a problem, is
there! Also, in terms of "unlikely to happen", this scenario is about
as likely as my finding fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Any joy with your house?
Are you taking the mick?
Actually, I had a lady around this morning, who seem very interested.
But I expect she has by now been sucked up into the sky by the Giant
Vortex, never to be seen or heard of again. Such a shame.
MM