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.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this notion.
...
It makes the buyer look real, smart, and no nonsense. It brings urgency to a process which many times has already drifted. My two cents is never make an offer which doesn't have a deadline associated with it.
Maybe it just makes the buyer look self-important and pretentious, while providing a false sense of personal gravitas, since it is unnecessary and brings no value or impetus to the transaction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archguy
Definitely not familiar with how things are done in Texas (or many places) but in the Washington area all offers take the form of binding contracts and I have never seen one executed without earnest money (often in five digits) being attached.
Now, don't get waylaid by the separate issue of earnest money custody. The simple fact is that my hands are tied while my contract is out there. I can't even look at other houses, reasonably speaking, because I might have already bought one. True, maybe I'll receive a counter, but maybe my offer will be accepted. In which case I have a new house.
And this has happened, when?
And has been prevented, when?
And no one ever terminates a contract in Washington?
EMD is certainly not immaterial, if you want to talk about a binding contract. EMD is one of the only true risks involved. If there are no risks to the buyer, why worry at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archguy
It blows my mind that agents will leave such contracts open-ended. Serves no one but themselves, and arguably, the seller. Sure, as a seller, I'm sure I'd like to collect a bunch of binding contracts on my house. As a buyer, I have to put a limit on this vulnerability.
Pure pointless drivel. The inclusion or exclusion of termination of offer language does not serve the agent or buyer, or seller.
Attitudes in transactions are there whether unnecessary language is inserted or not. Puffing about how one is not to be trifled with is usually accompanied by other symptoms of being a PITA.
All other things being equal, if my sellers received two identical offers, and one had no deadline for unconditional acceptance, and no other puffery about gravitas, I would tell them it was a better offer.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 08-28-2013 at 06:00 PM..
Hey, jackish, what's your obsession with Buyers avoiding annoying a Seller? You keep talking about no benefit when there is a benefit to an exploding offer- you highlight the fact that you will go away if they don't say yes and draw their attention to something they might not have been thinking about before as they dream about the perfect bid.
If a Seller is annoyed by an expiration clause, they are being inappropriately emotional and poorly advised. If you eliminate the exploding offer from your negotiating arsenal because of "annoyance", you are doing your buyer clients a major disservice.
Hey, jackish, what's your obsession with Buyers avoiding annoying a Seller? You keep talking about no benefit when there is a benefit to an exploding offer- you highlight the fact that you will go away if they don't say yes and draw their attention to something they might not have been thinking about before as they dream about the perfect bid.
If a Seller is annoyed by an expiration clause, they are being inappropriately emotional and poorly advised. If you eliminate the exploding offer from your negotiating arsenal because of "annoyance", you are doing your buyer clients a major disservice.
Everyone involved in any professional role in real estate brokerage knows that an offer is rescindable at any time, and does not have to be left on the table. Everyone with competence, that is.
So, your offers actually "explode?" Don't send them through US Mail. That would be a felony. <sweat like a pig> Does the seller have to cut the red wire? Or the blue wire? </sweat like a pig>
Huffing and puffing is one of the most transparent junior-league ploys in real estate, and easy to see through. I guess it may work if you are dealing with weaker than normal people, but generally no one with any professional or personal competence takes it seriously. "Wind in the trees" seems an apt description.
Do you drive a black Chevy with a "3" on the side and call yourself "The Intimidator?"
LOL
You can call me "Mike." Or "MikeJaquish." Or "Mike Jaquish." Feel free to copy/paste any of those options.
I apologize if I only spelled it properly about 17000 times right in front of you, but I did not know that was fairly obscure to some people.
You misquoted me in your rush to disinform.
Clearly, there is no tangible benefit to the buyer to provoke a seller with a gratuitous irritant. None..
Huh???? WTF are you babbling about? How exactly did I misquote you? I hit the quote button and responded to your post. I neither added nor subtracted any words from your scribblings.
And repeating over and over that there is no tangible benefit to the buyer does not make your view correct. It just shows you to be an obstinate individual, who despite being provided with on point examples that show your view to be erroneous, continues to hold to your misinformed opinion.
Huh???? WTF are you babbling about? How exactly did I misquote you? I hit the quote button and responded to your post. I neither added nor subtracted any words from your scribblings.
And repeating over and over that there is no tangible benefit to the buyer does not make your view correct. It just shows you to be an obstinate individual, who despite being provided with on point examples that show your view to be erroneous, continues to hold to your misinformed opinion.
Actually, there IS no tangible benefit to buyer, as evidenced by the inability of any poster to reference any tangible benefit.
That fact alone bears repeating due to obstinance of several posters to recognize the fact.
A deadline for acceptance:
does not save a buyer money,
does not simplify the process,
does not prevent shopping the offer,
does not affect transaction time line unless a seller cares to let it,
does not lend the offer credibility,
does not provide seller with improved terms to make an offer look more attractive in multiple offer situations,
does not provide any material improvement to any party, other than to make the buyer feel good.
I guess if "feel good" is more important than successfully negotiating a transaction, then some buyers could call that a tangible benefit. I just wonder why they would dabble in real estate just to "feel good."
"Huff. Puff. But... But... Then the seller knows I am serious." From what evidence?
Name a transaction, or two, where a buyer prevailed due to the existence of a deadline for acceptance.
Or where an offer was clawed back by a seller because it was not rescinded and the buyer got stuck with the house.
Make the "tangible benefit" that no one can cite a material item.
Oh, yeah, the obvious misquote.
I mentioned again that there was no benefit to the buyer, and you said I was absolutely right, that it brought no benefit to the seller, and wasn't meant to. While, I clearly agree that it doesn't benefit the seller just as it benefits no one else, it was a misquote to not work with the statement I made.
Whatever. Different entertainment for different people.
Weird hang ups to avoid real estate transaction closings seem to be the norm in some areas.
I cannot recall ever including a deadline in a contract offer for a client. My local contract template does not have an inclusion for it, nor have I ever seen one written in on any of my listings.
Now, I'll happily let the listing agent know that my clients and I are going out tomorrow to view additional homes, so it might be in the sellers best interest to give attention to our offer prior to that.
Actually, there IS no tangible benefit to buyer, as evidenced by the inability of any poster to reference any tangible benefit.
That fact alone bears repeating due to obstinance of several posters to recognize the fact.
A deadline for acceptance:
does not save a buyer money,
does not simplify the process,
does not prevent shopping the offer,
does not affect transaction time line unless a seller cares to let it,
does not lend the offer credibility,
does not provide seller with improved terms to make an offer look more attractive in multiple offer situations,
does not provide any material improvement to any party, other than to make the buyer feel good.
I guess if "feel good" is more important than successfully negotiating a transaction, then some buyers could call that a tangible benefit. I just wonder why they would dabble in real estate just to "feel good."
"Huff. Puff. But... But... Then the seller knows I am serious." From what evidence?
Name a transaction, or two, where a buyer prevailed due to the existence of a deadline for acceptance. Or where an offer was clawed back by a seller because it was not rescinded and the buyer got stuck with the house.
Make the "tangible benefit" that no one can cite a material item.
yep. I'm sure one day, a seller/listing agent will try and force the hand of my client..
and I'll happily front the $350 for a home inspection and use that as our out, as our local home inspection contingency allows a very easy one, regardless of the inspection outcome.
yep. I'm sure one day, a seller/listing agent will try and force the hand of my client..
and I'll happily front the $350 for a home inspection and use that as our out, as our local home inspection contingency allows a very easy one, regardless of the inspection outcome.
Gotya trumped there.
Our buyer can terminate "for any reason or no reason" during Due Diligence.
"Hey. That offer your wrote in 2012? Your buyer is getting a new home!"
"Meh. I think not. Terminate."
What is the seller going to do? Sue for EMD?
A pillar of Offer and Acceptance is acceptance within "a reasonable time." Accepting after trigger dates in the offer have passed would not be within a reasonable time for any prudent person.
When I make an offer of $XX to purchase a property, the seller has the choice to accept, reject, counter or do nothing at all. After the deadline associated with the offer, those choices are replaced with another : wait for another buyer to make an offer on the seller's property. My offer is no longer available.
I add deadlines because I don't wait to wait infinitely for a seller to make up his/her mind about a good offer. If s/he is not interested, that is okay. I will move on to another property and the seller can move on to another buyer. There is no need to let an offer dangle in perpetuity.
I went with a three day expiration. The seller answered back the next day with a counter offer. The counter offer is indefinite (no expiration), but it states the seller has the right to accept a different offer first.
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.
