Why doesn't the vendor sign the contract first?

El_Dangeroso

There are a lot of threads on here and in the buying 2013 thread where there are massive delays in the vendor signing after surveys and valuations have been paid for.

Wouldn't a more sensible system be where the offer is made, accepted, the vendor then signs the contract to sell allowing the buyer to complete valuations and structural surveys and pull out or complete if necessary.

Seems like it would result in a lot less wasted time and money on the buyers behalf.

Webster29

Under the Statute of the Frauds, contacts for the sale of land had to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged ie the vendor. If the vendor signed first the contract would be enforceable from that signature. Now replaced by s51 of the land and conveyancing law reform act 2009.

El_Dangeroso

Thanks for explaining the legal side!
What is the reason behind it do you know?

Webster29

It's about when the contract should go live. It goes live when vendor signs whether or not purchaser has signed. So to make sure both parties were happy to proceed purchaser signed first then vendor. Contract then live.

El_Dangeroso

Webster29 wrote: »

It's about when the contract should go live. It goes live when vendor signs whether or not purchaser has signed. So to make sure both parties were happy to proceed purchaser signed first then vendor. Contract then live.

Can't the rules be changed so the contract is only live when both vendor and purchaser sign? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Webster29

The rules could be changed, but they haven't been.

camphor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Can't the rules be changed so the contract is only live when both vendor and purchaser sign? Just doesn't make sense to me.

It would be silly to do it. There may well be clauses in the contract the purchaser objects to. If the vendor signed first, the purchaser would have no chance to delete or amend them.

El_Dangeroso

camphor wrote: »

It would be silly to do it. There may well be clauses in the contract the purchaser objects to. If the vendor signed first, the purchaser would have no chance to delete or amend them.

Doesn't that work the other direction for the vendor at the moment? Plus the fact that the purchaser can walk away if they don't like the terms. I really don't see how it's silly at all. In fact it would expedite things greatly and stop vendors messing people around.

camphor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Doesn't that work the other direction for the vendor at the moment? Plus the fact that the purchaser can walk away if they don't like the terms. I really don't see how it's silly at all. In fact it would expedite things greatly and stop vendors messing people around.

You would have purchasers messing people around. The vendors would just put clauses in the contracts that no one would accept before they sign them. Nothing would change. A reluctant vendor is not going to become les reluctant because he has to sign first.

El_Dangeroso

camphor wrote: »

You would have purchasers messing people around. The vendors would just put clauses in the contracts that no one would accept before they sign them. Nothing would change. A reluctant vendor is not going to become les reluctant because he has to sign first.

So what if the vendor puts in a terrible clause to put off a purchaser? The purchaser hasn't shelled out for valuation and surveying fees at this point. Having to sign a contract first would make a reluctant vendor think twice before accepting an offer.

camphor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So what if the vendor puts in a terrible clause to put off a purchaser? The purchaser hasn't shelled out for valuation and surveying fees at this point. Having to sign a contract first would make a reluctant vendor think twice before accepting an offer.

Vendors would refuse to entertain offers until the purchaser had completed all surveys. Purchaser would be no further ahead than now.

El_Dangeroso

camphor wrote: »

Vendors would refuse to entertain offers until the purchaser had completed all surveys. Purchaser would be no further ahead than now.

No they wouldn't, if that was the case each party in a bid would have to have all surveys done first before bidding commenced. That wouldn't happen.

camphor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

No they wouldn't, if that was the case each party in a bid would have to have all surveys done first before bidding commenced. That wouldn't happen.

That is what happens in Scotland. Once an agreement is reached there is deemed be be a contract. For that reason all surveys and title checks have to be done first. What you are proposing would make things worse for buyers. The vendor will seek to protect himself at every turn.

El_Dangeroso

camphor wrote: »

That is what happens in Scotland. Once an agreement is reached there is deemed be be a contract. For that reason all surveys and title checks have to be done first. What you are proposing would make things worse for buyers. The vendor will seek to protect himself at every turn.

Really? That's interesting, so any house you offer on you need to do a survey first?

camphor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Really? That's interesting, so any house you offer on you need to do a survey first?

You can offer but if it is accepted there is deemed to be a contract. No good finding out about the dry rot afterwards.
Buying and selling houses is complicated and stressful. A messer on either side can cause a lot of itrouble.
The Law Reform Commission analysed the current law and recommended no change on the basis that the alternatives may well be worse and will certainly be no better.