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'm still trying to figure out what the agent did wrong and you never clarified that. You got a contract which created dual agency. The buyer agent/buyer did inspections and submitted repair requests with copies of reports to your agent who then brought them over and submitted them to you. You made a slight adjustment to what the buyer asked for and I assume that got worked out. What else is happening to make you angry? What are you upset at him about?
Be careful who's advice you listen to on the internet btw. Not everyone has your best interest in mind. Some posters are here on an agenda to run down agents every opportunity they get and are quite clever at doing it.
Just because you chose to ignore that the furnace wasn't up to code, doesn't mean the buyer would or should. Lots of sellers do additions without a permit--some buyers don't care, others do.
And it's kind of hypocritical that you're bad mouthing your listing agent to your new buying agent when you complained that the listing agent said something negative about a previous client.
If you stated how much the asking price was, it would help to put things in perspective...
First, you need to see what the inspection clause says in your real estate contract. You indicate that the furnace works just fine, so what does your inspection clause say about defects? What's interesting is that it's a 40 year old furnace and the buyer obviously could have seen that it's not a newer furnace. So they placed an offer with that in mind. Now they use the inspection clause, not to fix the furnace, but to demand a new one.
I don't like buyers who use the inspection clause to further get a downward agreement on price based upon factors that were obvious to them prior to placing the offer. The inspection clause should be used to find hidden defects that no one was aware of- and then adjust for them. After all, does the buyer pay more for a house when the inspection shows that something is in great condition?
Anyway, with an older house a buyer needs to realize that the improvements are indeed older. Unless the inspection showed something like a leaking heat exchanger then I'm not sure what the buyer is expecting. I'm basing this upon the fact that you said your furnace works just fine. The buyer shouldn't be demanding a new furnace simply because it's older. Wasn't that obvious when they looked at it prior to placing their offer? A hidden defect is a whole 'nother story.
yousah, you are the perfect example of someone who gets it vs. someone who doesn't. The offense in this situation has shades of what you said. I worked with another broker when I bought this house I'm selling now, and her approach was quite different. When a broker is representing you, you shouldn't hear flat-out acquiescence. There should be a clear discussion of the situation and options. He should have proposed that we not give the buyer exactly what they asked for. That is when my confidence in him began to fall apart. Yes, I have an offer and a contract of sale. Everything is moving along so the buyers can purchase my house. I know I am fortunate in this regard; however, when a client gets a sense that the broker representing them caves to the opposite side just like that, it affects the confidence you feel in the person who was supposed to represent you and your interests.
Those of you who are criticizing my disappointment with him need to understand that it was a loss of faith issue. As a realtor, if you say you're going to be at an inspection, then be there. Don't say you will, then duck out. If he had been there, he would have known firsthand that 1/ concern was raised; 2/ my oil company was going to be called; and 3/ an attempt was going to be made to get my service records. I would have freely given the information and the records, but it would have been better had he gotten the service records, discussed them with me, and then presented them to the buyer. This way, the records would have been coming FROM me instead of AT me, changing the complexion of everything.
I, as someone who is still learning the house selling/buying process, continually have questions. I've come to the conclusion that some realtors have just gone through so many of these sales for so many years.. Discussions with my buyer's realtor here has helped me understand that some of them are integrity-bound, regardless of the number of years or sales, and some are not. I highly respect those who are.
So the furnace works fine and is up to code or not? I'm still not getting it as you said it wasn't earlier, or so I thought.
I'll flip this around a little. I just had a closing where my listing didn't have a clear termite letter because of some water damage and a few termite tubes. It was required for the buyers loan to have a clear CL100 (termite letter) so I told my sellers they needed to treat and have the damage repaired which they didn't want to do. I told them if they wanted to sell the house they needed to have it done and so they did and we closed. In your opinion did I not properly represent my sellers? I'm trying to get where you're coming from, I really am but you still haven't provided a clear example of how your agent didn't represent you.
Do you think the LA should have let, or encouraged, their seller to pay for HVAC repairs before the buyers even submitted a formal repair list?
no.
but if the listing agent were truly at the inspection (IIRC the seller said their agent was supposed to be there) and it was perceived that the buyers would be asking for it (and potentially additional items), volunteering for some type of HVAC repair might sway the buyers from overlooking other items, in effect helping the seller out.
* NOTE - I did not take the time to reread the thread specifics. just took this post and ran with it
Do you think the LA should have let, or encouraged, their seller to pay for HVAC repairs before the buyers even submitted a formal repair list?
In the original post the OP said they did submit a written request for a credit to cover the cost of the furnace. However, hypothetically speaking, if nothing had been submitted formally then the answer would be no.
First, you need to see what the inspection clause says in your real estate contract. You indicate that the furnace works just fine, so what does your inspection clause say about defects? What's interesting is that it's a 40 year old furnace and the buyer obviously could have seen that it's not a newer furnace. So they placed an offer with that in mind. Now they use the inspection clause, not to fix the furnace, but to demand a new one.
Now now, not all buyers are so well educated in what an old furnace is versus what a new furnace is. I had absolutely no idea what even a FURNACE IS, not to mention telling a new one from old (besides, what is "old"? It's all relative). As a buyer, all I care about is that it works fine for the time being. And I understand that there are old houses with old systems, yet I also understand that things don't usually break all at once, so some systems or parts of it may be new, others old but still kicking. I also understand that some people take better care of their homes than others, no matter how old or new the house is. That's what the inspection is for. Again, I knew NOTHING about any of this, having lived all the time in a rental apartment, and started to learn a lot when we bought a house.
Some inspectors might tell you approximate life expectancy, but not even that. If something is clearly broken (leaking, has other damage etc), or is not up to the code - inspector has to bring it up to the buyers attention, and if it's a serious problem, it does affect the price. It may be dangerous even - say leaking oil tank. Again, this is not to say that sellers are mean and are hiding defects - they may not be aware of the defects, or even if they periodically check things out it may be a very recent problem.
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,307,357 times
Reputation: 6471
I represented the seller of a property a few years ago and the buyers had a well inspection done. These inspections cover quality and quantity of the water produced.
2 weeks after the close, the pump (in the bottom of the well) failed. The buyers were not happy about that, but their agent apparently didn't tell them the nature of what that inspection entailed. I'm with yousah on this one. It's reasonable to ask how old a piece of equipment is, it's not so reasonable to insist on a new piece of equipment, especially if maintenance could be done to render the current equipment functional.
3 years later, the new owners send me all sorts of referrals.
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.
