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.
Exactly. Why is this a problem for the cousin to solve? Granted, he ain't the brightest knife on the tree if he signs something that important without even reading it carefully, but still - it sounds to me as though the error was to his advantage. If the contract is signed and valid, he just bought himself a house. If the seller has a problem with the outcome because he, too, was too careless to read the contract, then he needs to take it up with the agent.
If the cousin wants to be a nice guy and try to work it out with the seller, then that's his prerogative, and good for him. But he's under no obligation to do so, and if the seller digs in his heels, it should not be the cousin's problem. We have a contract - give me the keys to my new condo, please.
Not sure what the buyer is supposed to do here, the issue is not that he didn't read the contract carefully, it is the terms in the contract he signed was written and presented to him in error (supposedly). I don't know if any amount of careful reading would reveal that.
And yes, the contract and the addendum was signed by seller and buyer. One can fathom that the seller was just as careless as the agent who drafted the addendum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
I can't understand why even a novice buyer wouldn't know better than to get talked into dual agency. You're right - there are some circumstances in which dual agency is a smart move, but it's very rarely a good idea for a first-time buyer. And this is a good example of why not.
I hope the cousin learns two things from this. Number one, don't ever sign anything without reading every single word and making absolutely sure you understand it; and number two, don't ask your uncle the electrician for advice on how to fix your plumbing, no matter how good an electrician he is. Hire an expert on the subject of plumbing, and take your advice from him.
My take is that no one ever enters into a dual agency unless forced by circumstance. If your market is such that you never had to face this dilemma, then count your blessing.
Before anyone responds, it would be helpful to know how the costs break down. You note that buyer/seller agree to split costs for "demolition of shower stall and dry rot inspection of the framing behind the shower". How much of the $8,000 estimate is for that, and how much is for "everything else"?
The $8,000 is all for repair. The demolition and inspection cost are not included in the $8,000.
.
So your cousin pays half and, essentially, the dual agent and the seller pay the other half.
Am I missing something?
What is a dual agent in your area? If she represents both sides then shouldn't she and the seller pay half. And then she and the buyer pay half.
Yes, a dual agent is someone who represents both the buyer and seller.
My cousin paying half is just an idea, not yet proposed and certainly not accepted by the seller.
The situation is that:
- The repair is estimated to be $8,000
- The contract says seller pays.
- Both parties signed the contract.
- But agent is saying he made a mistake in the signed agreement. That he meant to say the buyer pays and the seller does not want to pay.
- Splitting the cost 50/50 is just an idea that perhaps both sides could accept as a remedy. My cousin could pay half of the $8,000 and the other half comes from agent/seller. And if agent/seller are to pay the other half, then it makes sense that they'd split it 50/50 ($2,000 each). Anyway, just an idea.
.
Yes, a dual agent is someone who represents both the buyer and seller.
My cousin paying half is just an idea, not yet proposed and certainly not accepted by the seller.
The situation is that:
- The repair is estimated to be $8,000
- The contract says seller pays.
- Both parties signed the contract.
- But agent is saying he made a mistake in the signed agreement. That he meant to say the buyer pays and the seller does not want to pay.
- Splitting the cost 50/50 is just an idea that perhaps both sides could accept as a remedy. My cousin could pay half of the $8,000 and the other half comes from agent/seller. And if agent/seller are to pay the other half, then it makes sense that they'd split it 50/50 ($2,000 each). Anyway, just an idea.
.
You've got to be kidding. No, your cousin should not pay half. Your idea has your cousin, who wasn't the one who made the mistake, out the most money since you are proposing the agent/seller split the other half. How is that even remotely fair? Do you not like your cousin? Seriously, this is not his problem, it is an issue for the seller and agent to work out. They are now legally bound to that contract they signed. Why on Earth would you suggest he fork over money for their error? Unless that condo deal was just a bargain, as in over $8,000 below market value, he should tell them either honor the contract as signed or pay him his damages for a broken contract and he'll walk. Surely there is other property available.
If this "great" idea of him forking over an extra $4,000 for a realtor error is your idea of an acceptable remedy you need to quit giving advice. It's bad enough that you advised him to use a dual agent, sheesh. He needs to get his own realtor.
If there is any splitting to do the seller and the agent can fork over $4,000 each.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
You've got to be kidding. No, your cousin should not pay half. Your idea has your cousin, who wasn't the one who made the mistake, out the most money since you are proposing the agent/seller split the other half. How is that even remotely fair? Do you not like your cousin? Seriously, this is not his problem, it is an issue for the seller and agent to work out. They are now legally bound to that contract they signed. Why on Earth would you suggest he fork over money for their error? Unless that condo deal was just a bargain, as in over $8,000 below market value, he should tell them either honor the contract as signed or pay him his damages for a broken contract and he'll walk. Surely there is other property available.
If this "great" idea of him forking over an extra $4,000 for a realtor error is your idea of an acceptable remedy you need to quit giving advice. It's bad enough that you advised him to use a dual agent, sheesh. He needs to get his own realtor.
If there is any splitting to do the seller and the agent can fork over $4,000 each.
+1
This is not your cousin's problem and don't be quick to volunteer his money. Perhaps the listing agent will learn a lesson on dual agency.
Were there discussions about who was going to pay? Meaning did they verbally agree the buyer would pay the balance and then just put the wrong word in the contract? Or did they verbally agree that the seller would pay the balance and your cousin signed a contract that accurately reflected his understanding of what they had agreed to?
Yes, a dual agent is someone who represents both the buyer and seller.
My cousin paying half is just an idea, not yet proposed and certainly not accepted by the seller.
The situation is that:
- The repair is estimated to be $8,000
- The contract says seller pays.
- Both parties signed the contract.
- But agent is saying he made a mistake in the signed agreement. That he meant to say the buyer pays and the seller does not want to pay.
- Splitting the cost 50/50 is just an idea that perhaps both sides could accept as a remedy. My cousin could pay half of the $8,000 and the other half comes from agent/seller. And if agent/seller are to pay the other half, then it makes sense that they'd split it 50/50 ($2,000 each). Anyway, just an idea.
.
Can you get definitive word on what the seller is saying,not his agent?
Not sure what the buyer is supposed to do here, the issue is not that he didn't read the contract carefully, it is the terms in the contract he signed was written and presented to him in error (supposedly). I don't know if any amount of careful reading would reveal that.
He was told that the contract said "buyer pays", but the piece of paper he signed actually said "seller pays." So either he did not read the document carefully before he signed it, or the language was changed after he signed it. Or what am I missing?
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.
