Seller not moving on contract closing date!

peaceboi

Hi There,
we r first time buyers, recently agreed on buying a 3 bed semi detached house @ dublin 15. we completed every paper works, well in advance but, on the eve of contract closing date, seller's solicitor rings ours and says the seller's isnt ready yet to move & need 5 more days.
Really annoyed now, coz we packed everything and told our landlord that we r vaccating on the closing date.
Can we do something legally against the seller, for breaking contract terms? Can we report the matter to garda? isnt it illegal for them to still stay there? we already paid them 10% cash of the property, but not the final mortgage cheque.
Please share your thoughts. thank you

D3PO

its an absolute disgrace. I personallly believe its a breach of contract and you should be able to sue on a previous thread though some of the legal eagles said that its not an essential part of the contract unless specifically indicated as so and therfore you wouldnt win.

Id be banging down their door demanding money for a hotel and storage of my belongings for the 5 days.

Paulw

Talk to your solicitor.

Until the final cheque (and keys and deeds) are handed over, they still own the premises.

peaceboi

Thanks d3po and paul,
I talked, to my solicitor, she says,the garda wont interfere, coz its a matter of only few days!
She said, she can prepare somthing like to charge them interest, for staying there for 5 days. I really didnt understand her, 2 be honest.
I dunoo if we have a proper legal stand. or
coz how do we charge them anyways, tey gonna go to a new place, tey said to some county. a new address. etc.

Zamboni

Sorry to hear that peaceboi.

Hope you get something sorted mate.
Can you arrrange an extension with your landlord or have they got someone moving in?


For anyone else reading this, that intends buying in the future, remember that an extra months rent is a small price to pay to avoid dealing with idiotic sellers like this.

peaceboi

o yes,, we r nw requesting our landlord now for a few more days.

Jo King

This happens all of the time at almost every conveyance. One side or other holds back. Unless time has been made of the essence in the contract there is no breach of condition. The o/p should hope that it is only 5 days.

D3PO

Jo King you seem to be in the legal profession from posts ive seen form you before. So my question to you is why by default in do solicitors doing conveyancing not make time of the essence by default in the contract ?

They are the professionals and your paying them for their expertese it shouldnt be for an FTB to have to specify this kind of thing to a solicitor.

Quite honestly solicitors who are dealing in this kind of thing day in day out should know and advise buyers better.

seamus

D3PO wrote: »

Jo King you seem to be in the legal profession from posts ive seen form you before. So my question to you is why by default in do solicitors doing conveyancing not make time of the essence by default in the contract ?

I imagine to a certain degree solicitors don't insist on it because it places extra burden on the solicitor. Things can go wrong on the day of signing and the solicitors cause delays with getting cheques and contracts back-and-forth. If there was a penalty clause on the contract for not vacating on time, the solicitor's head is equally in the chopping block if he/she delays.

Jo King

D3PO wrote: »

. So my question to you is why by default in do solicitors doing conveyancing not make time of the essence by default in the contract ?

There are risks to both sides. Buyers often cannot close on time. Mortgage cheque late, trouble arranging insurance etc. If in every deal time was of the essence there would be massive uncertainty. At least now when contracts are signed the sale will close sometime, usually pretty close to the agreed date. If time was of the essence there would be deals breaking down all over the place. A bank being late issuing a loan cheque could result in a buyer not being able to close until a day or two after the agreed date. It would not be pleasant for them if the seller pulled out and sued them for his costs.

Victor

D3PO wrote: »

Jo King you seem to be in the legal profession from posts ive seen form you before. So my question to you is why by default in do solicitors doing conveyancing not make time of the essence by default in the contract ?

They are the professionals and your paying them for their expertese it shouldnt be for an FTB to have to specify this kind of thing to a solicitor.

Quite honestly solicitors who are dealing in this kind of thing day in day out should know and advise buyers better.

Quite often its because its the vendor that dictates the contract and it usually suits them for time not to be of the essence.

There is of course the matter of the buyer's colicitor not advising their client of the meaning fo the contract clauses.

Ronald Sherrif

Victor wrote: »

Quite often its because its the vendor that dictates the contract and it usually suits them for time not to be of the essence.

There is of course the matter of the buyer's colicitor not advising their client of the meaning fo the contract clauses.

The solicitor is paid for doing the conveyance, not for giving a law course. There are over 40 clauses in the standard form contract, not to mention special conditions. The o/ps complaint is minor in the usual run of house purchases. If it is the only thing that goes wrong he should count himself lucky.

Victor

Ronald Sherrif wrote: »

The solicitor is paid for doing the conveyance, not for giving a law course. There are over 40 clauses in the standard form contract, not to mention special conditions. The o/ps complaint is minor in the usual run of house purchases. If it is the only thing that goes wrong he should count himself lucky.

And that sounds rather unthinking and unappreciative of what clients want over their heads (a roof) - and they want it tonight, not next week.

If you went into a restaurant and ordered steak, you wouldn't accept it uncooked, cold or still breathing, would you? So why should buyers have to accept solicitors not explaining the common pit falls? Would that intrude on a solicitor's cosy little world of legal nuance too much?

Blackjack

AFAIR, in Scotland, if you don't close by an afreed date, the following, or something close to applies:

Buyer not closing: pays costs of bridging loans for the number of days on which they fail to close. In 2004, the rates of a bridging loan were 4% above variable or Base (can't remember which). Not certain if this applies whether or not a bridging loan is indeed required, but may be claimable regardless.

Seller not closing: pay the cost of temporary accommodation for buyer including storage of goods and possessions and travel, which was limited to certain conditions of reasonablility (not a 5 star hotel n Monaco or anything), but you would be OK.

Meant that stuff closed on time....

peaceboi

Thanks guys for ur thoughts. We were lucky, our landlord has agreed, for few more days, infact, i guess it might be coz' he couldnt find a tenant in time!
btw We Paid 2 grand fee to the solicitor, i think she should have told us or atleast mentioned about the specific time in the contract. i think it was poor service.
tue is the new agreed date by the seller.hope tey dont mess around again!!

Jo King

Victor wrote: »

And that sounds rather unthinking and unappreciative of what clients want over their heads (a roof) - and they want it tonight, not next week.

If you went into a restaurant and ordered steak, you wouldn't accept it uncooked, cold or still breathing, would you? So why should buyers have to accept solicitors not explaining the common pit falls? Would that intrude on a solicitor's cosy little world of legal nuance too much?

When I go into a restaurant I expect the waiter to find me a high chair, tie a bib around my neck, chop up my food for me, spoon it into my mouth and give me toys to play with while I'm waiting.

D3PO

Jo King wrote: »

There are risks to both sides. Buyers often cannot close on time. Mortgage cheque late, trouble arranging insurance etc. If in every deal time was of the essence there would be massive uncertainty. At least now when contracts are signed the sale will close sometime, usually pretty close to the agreed date. If time was of the essence there would be deals breaking down all over the place. A bank being late issuing a loan cheque could result in a buyer not being able to close until a day or two after the agreed date. It would not be pleasant for them if the seller pulled out and sued them for his costs.

Well do you not think at the very least solicitors should not tell their clients this ? It wouldnt take much for a solicitor to say look were hoping to close on X date but there are so many variables that it mightn't happen, so if your renting I suggest you hang onto your rental for another week / 2 weeks after the closing date.

At least then the client knows what to expect. Right now the OP whos an FTB might get shafted because reasonably enough they were told the sale would close on X date and took their solicitors word on it.

Jo King

Who knows what to expect. The vendor might still not be ready after 5 days.
The vendor might be buying from someone who themselves is not ready and so on through a long chain of closings.
There are so many "what ifs" that it would take a half a day to go through them. The vast majority never happen. The solicitor who gives solemn warnings about moving closing dates will find the client complaining, when it does close on time, that they have wasted a months rent.
It would be very rare that someone is in such a position that they cannot manage for a few days. It might be inconvenient but it is far from the end of the world.
What if the o/p is told on the day of the closing that there is a whopper of a judgement mortgage on the house and he cannot close until it is cleared, unless he wants to pay it? The vendor then says that he cannot get funds to clear it and he is in negative equity and so there is no point in suing for damages.

D3PO

thanks Jo King nice to get the legal perspective on all this.

They system just is very harsh on the buyer who has no chain, where as the seller seems to hold all the cards. Id love to see a better system in place but it is what it is.

Jo King

The vendor can get messed around as well. They are selling and buying and can get messed around both ways. The FTB is usually travelling lighter, won't buy furniture until actually in the door. It is not unusual for the vendor to have his furniture removal company take away his furniture and then for the buyer to stall the deal.