Posted by Rob FL on January 17, 1999 at 10:57:22:
…dictates that all real estate contracts MUST be in writing. Unless the buyer is somehow in occupancy or has made significant improvements. If the seller has paid for all the improvements, then the buyer is almost certainly out of luck. You may want to doublecheck this with an attorney, but I am almost positive their response will be the same unless your state laws are different than most others in the country.
A little Solomonic wisdom would be nice… - Posted by Christopher C. Reed
Posted by Christopher C. Reed on January 17, 1999 at 10:42:40:
Broker buys a property for his own account.
105K purchase price
150-160K A/R Value
Promises to sell to a particular buyer for 125K. (Now, if it were me I’d take the deal as is and run.) But this buyer wants it ‘fixed up’. (Understand, this is a cat house–unspayed, undeclawed, nicotine yellow.) So the broker puts his paint crew on it. $5K, 25 tubes of caulk, and 25 gallons of Killz later it’s a dollhouse. Along the way the erstwhile buyer has been nagging the crew into fixing this broken window, that sash cord, use this color here, that one there, etc.–all on the broker’s nickel.
Then along comes a retail buyer offering 156K.
No contracts have been signed, no binders–nuthin but ‘verbal understandings’, i.e. misunderstandings.
What’s the broker to do?
–CR
Does the term SOL mean anything? - Posted by Irwin
Posted by Irwin on January 17, 1999 at 20:48:51:
Because that’s what the buyer is, unless the broker elects to keep a verbal agreement. Buyer should have gotten the agreement pinned down in writing.