Forum Replies Created
Hi kp,
Goodness, multiple offers!!! [wacko]
I realise this does occur, but for me at least, I will stick to just ONE contract at a time!!!
Jo
Grreg,
The REIV contract notes have allocated space for both the details of the lender and the amount of finance being borrowed to be specified. However, I believe there have been instances where this information was (deliberately???) omitted. Which of course would be a legal no-no (I’d imagine).
I’d guess that the purchaser in your scenario, did not take the “reasonable” steps expected of him/her with respect to buying the property; did not offer justifable cause for terminating the contract and as such had to pay the consequences, literally (and IMO rightly so)!!!
I guess the bottom line is, if you don’t want the property, don’t make an offer. Which means you don’t need to worry about including ANY “subject to” clauses because there won’t be a contract in place in which you need to try and worm your way out of!!!! TOO EASY…
Jo
Hey!!!! Watch it bucko!!!! [laugh4][laugh4][laugh4]
(Pssst…Bennido; I won’t tell our little secret if you don’t okay???) [winking][winking][winking]
Hi Kaloni,
Yes Chelsea is one of those lovely bayside suburbs next to Seaford, but a fair bit more costly.
It is an older but very well established area, with great beachfront homes.
Definitely worth considering!!!
Jo
P.S. Kaloni, I have sent you a PM with further details.
Misty,
I would give this a great deal of thought, and personally dismiss it.
Ever heard of the Privacy Act??? Unless you tell them what the pictures are for (as Pepper said) you could get yourself into deep water. And if you don’t tell them (as some here may imply) fun or no fun, it won’t cut it with the authorities!!! Don’t think the law will see your “fun and love” of photo-taking in the same light and justification for breaching privacy laws.
If you really MUST have some way to track them, a drivers licence will usually be sufficient, taking photos “just in case” is absurd, and makes you look suspicious!!!
Jo
Aussie, I’m shocked….shocked2] I nearly fell off my seat when I read your post….I’ve NEVER known you to bite at ANYONE!!!!!
You feeling okay hon??? [tongue]
Jo
Hey Misty,
Maybe you could get them to pose back to blank wall, standing on a chalk line and holding up one of those number plate thingies!!!! Saves time as they won’t have to bother about it when they are officially charged and taken to the lock-up!!!!!
Gotta love ya Misty; you’re a card!!!! [laugh4]
Jo
Point taken; my mistake….I have edited my post accordingly.
Originally posted by brahms:As such Jo, I accept the challenge, a ‘sure deal’ at $10k less is better for the realtor (and most possibly the vendor!!!) – its a commercial decision when compared to extended settlements/conditions whereby other interested parties drift off and find other places to the detriment of securing secondary offers and dwindling impact of marketing exposure.
Yes Brahms I agree, as sure deal at $10K less is definitely better for all concerned, especially if it is the ONLY offer being brought to the table!!! Maybe I should have clarified that challenge a bit better. “In the event of more than just one offer…..and/or ANY other offers presented have no “subject to’s”….”
As a vendor, of course, if I really need to sell, I will accept the best deal I can get, either the one with little or no “subject to’s” at a lesser price and/or it is the one and only offer received.
But at the end of the day, regardless of how good all this appears, if there is no signature on the page to legitimize the deal/offer, no consideration will be given; they are wasting my time and their own!!!
Exactly right Brahms,
An offer is useless and of absolutely no value whatsoever, and as a seller I would pay little (if any) heed of such a claim in my REA came to me with such a notion.
As for the gazumping, as an outsider looking in, it obviously did not occur because either one of two factors (a) it was the only offer, and or (b) it was the highest offer. Call me cynical, but all that “air fairy” stuff in the business of real estate, and where money is involved; it won’t work.
I challenge anyone to show me a REA who will work in the best interest of the buyer to such an extent that they will forgoe a higher commission, simply because of (not even an official) but a promise to make an offer. Pleazzzzz !!!!
Jo
Sorry to hear the bad news Richmond; it’s nasty thing to happen especially if you have your heart set on it. Oh well don’t worry, I’m sure an even better deal will come along, and it has your name on it!!!
Maybe you should have tried making your offer based on the promise of not being gazumped; it seems to work for some!!!
Jo
P.S. Sorry Richmond, I misread that the REA accepted the offer on behalf of the buyer, and later came back at you with the bad news. In which case, maybe you should consider trying that aforementioned strategy in future, just to be on the safe side.
It’s okay Kim, not all of us in here are so suspicious. I think it was just the “win/win” thing that raised a few concerns, but most people in here wouldn’t give it a second thought. No one is suggesting anything untoward. And I ACTUALLY READ your post which suggested that the $78,000 was figure given to you by Centrelink and NOT what you were trying to pay for it!!!!
Jo
Originally posted by kay henry:a verbal agreement by the REA not to gazump, and their knowledge that I am serious about the purchase is the way I do these transactions. Just trust on both sides- that I will purchase, and that they won’t gazump.
Spoken like a true investor!!! Must try that trust thing, see how it stacks up against money….I believe it talks louder!!! As for the gazumping, bet if the REA was instructed by the vendor to take the higher offer, all the trust in the world ain’t going to work. Maybe no one else was interested at the time in the same property, or yours was just the highest bid; I’d tend to think it was the latter though!!! After all, people who bid market value or above tend not to get gazumped; yep that’s my problem; thanks for helping me see the light!!! Hopefully, next time I sell I’ll encounter generous buyers like you!!!
WayneL, you saying I’m full of bull???? [lmao][lmao]
Just kidding…lucky bulls got thick skin hey?? [laugh4][laugh4]
Yeah go on fess up….who loves little ol me???? [inlove] [laugh4][laugh4][laugh4]
Nah…seriously, I love the game, hence the choice of name; I have 6 different versions of the game, and hope to acquire many more (games as well)!!!! [lmao]
I have never taken part in the championship, and until recently didn’t know they existed; but AM VERY INTERESTED!!! Bring it on…..[medieval]
Jo [tongue]
No Bennido I don’t.
I tend to like to take both the Contract of Sale and the Section 32 to whoever I approach at the same time.
Subject to solicitor approval (in Victoria) is useless, but most people (thankfully for the vendors peace of mind) are unaware of this.
For most straight-out purchases, I tend to favour a conveyancer, but if there are say for instance easements or other suspect complications I will go to my solicitor and don’t take the Section 32, or if I do then it is with the knowledge that I am forefeiting my right to withdraw (not that I ever would anyway).
Jo
Bennido,
It only weakens your offer because the vendor may think “nope too hard” and will accept the offer of another bidder who has no “subject to” clauses or at most one, maybe two.
Obviously the more “subject to” clauses, the more the vendor will be fearful of the sale falling through, and as such may reject it to avoid the headache.
Furthermore, may I add one very interesting point, that if (in Victoria) you take your Section 32 to a solicitor to peruse (in place of a conveyancer) you forefeit the right of claiming the “cooling off period”.
Cheers,
Jo
Rodie,
My advice to you would be don’t buy into any asset unless the boundaries of your relationship are fully established and you have proper legal counsel behind you. Separation/divorce is messy and people have been liable for the ex-partner’s liabilities long after they have parted ways. There are many ways to reliniquish responsiblity, legally and ethically, but to buy into a situation such as property investing without adequate and professional counsel is playing with fire!!!
SEEK LEGAL ADVICE, THE COURTS DON’T GIVE A CROCK IF YOU THE BESTEST OF FRIENDS especially if children are involved!!! Division of assets may be honkey doorey at that moment, but when it comes to “what’s yours and what’s mine” I think you may be not-so-pleasantly surprised!!!
But hey, if you want to run the risk of losing half when/if he re-partners with another who may have a vested interest in what he (and you) own; go for it!!! Apart from legal advice, heed the advice from someone who has been divorced, marriage is a recognised institution that on the surface can be terminatedly easily, but property it becomes nasty business and lots of dirty pool!!!
Jo
Kim,
Forget the value in this lady’s OWN HOME, and concentrate ONLY on the INHERITED property for a minute.
If the value of it is in the mid 100’s as you state, there should not be an issue. She can sell it, and still not lose any of her entitlements.
Oh and yes, I do agree, professional legal advice would be best. I understand what you were saying, so there is no need to justify yourself to me, I know you were just trying to ask for advice on this lady’s behalf; nothing sinister in it.
Jo
Hi Kim,
“Her own home” is not counted. When on any centrelink payment, if asset tested, the payee’s home is never taken into consideration, it is only assets outside of that, i.e. car, boat, IPs, shares etc.
What is the estimated value of this inherited property???
Jo
