Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say offhand that a presumption that you know more than your buyer (which is pretty well established in case law) might weigh against you both in mediation and in arbitration.
Be cautious, and again, good luck.
I forgot to mention previously that the buyer had an attorney reviewing documents prior to them removing their contingencies.
Well, it may not have been on the market but once we had an accepted offer and made plans to move then yes there were damages. Plus, in California, with a properly executed liquidated damages clause, the damages are decided up front by the buyer and the seller. The reason CAR has adopted this is because no judge wants to decide what all the damages are. Can you imagine all the evidence and discussions about packing, moving companies and deposits placed on other rental houses or purchases?
That is why we have contingencies and liquidated damage clauses, otherwise buyers could just run around making offers and then backing out without ramification. I was just hoping someone had some experience to share.
Thanks for your feedback Joe.
I can, because I have been in situations on both sides where liquidated damages have come up and I've consulted with my attorney on all of them.
It is California and have not spoken to an attorney yet. I am a Realtor but was acting as a FSBO because my house wasn't on the market when another agent that I know asked if I would sell and then brought me an offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMenscha
I would say offhand that a presumption that you know more than your buyer (which is pretty well established in case law) might weigh against you both in mediation and in arbitration.
Be cautious, and again, good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slytrix
I wasn't trying to know more or trick anyone. The buyer may have needed better representation to protect themselves.
What DMenscha is saying is that because you are a licensed professional your actions are held to a different standard. You are presumed to "know better" because of it. Sometimes in these situations even though the professional is in the right leniency is given to the lay person because of it.
I get what you are saying Mike, just not sure why I should be held to a different standard when I was representing myself and the buyer had a Realtor and an attorney for representation?
It is California and have not spoken to an attorney yet. I am a Realtor but was acting as a FSBO because my house wasn't on the market when another agent that I know asked if I would sell and then brought me an offer.
I was going to say to check with your Realtor since they usually have dealt with that before and know the forms and contingencies that were used but was shocked to see that you are a Realtor. Part of being a "professional" is that you will be held to a higher standard in court. Because we are supposed to be more knowledgeable, that is why here in Idaho we are required to run all our own transactions through the MLS and also we must disclose our license and even our intent when buying a property for ourselves.
Just remember, only half the attorneys win in court every time!
Not sure why you would be shocked at my being a Realtor? Also not sure why you think I would be held to a higher standard since I was a principal in this transaction and yes I disclosed in writing that I am licensed.
I only had one buyer back out after they had removed contingencies and they willingly gave up their $5k deposit to move on.
I seriously doubt that if in Idaho an offer was made on your principle residence that was not currently listed for sale, that you would be required to enter it into the MLS. No signs, no advertising for sale, nada. Not saying that the MLS wouldn't want you to for statistical reasons.
I know you would be held to a higher standard in the court system because there is plenty of case law to substantiate that. Just Google "higher standards for professionals".
I can't speak for what is required in other parts of Idaho, but the Intermountain MLS requires we report "All" sales including our own personal transactions. The MLS is based on sharing data and if agents are allowed to selectively not include sales, the database gets distorted. During an audit, one of the first questions you will be asked as a Broker is "Did anyone in your office buy or sell any real estate in which they had an ownership interest?" If so, that/those files are sure to be audited.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
