Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]This timely chart was in my e-mail this morning:
http://journal.firsttuesday.us/wp-content/uploads/Buyer-Seller-Breach.png%5B/quote%5D
Thanks BG-but this chart relates to situations where an enforceable contract is in place. You can’t breach a contract until it exists. The question is when does the contract come into being. To summarize-if the buyer can walk away at any time until the contingencies are removed, it’s not a real contract. The Steiner case sort of suggests that if the buyer can walk away then the seller should be able to walk away too. Once the buyer can’t walk away then there is consideration and an enforceable contract comes into being. I am not saying this is settled law. It could be that court could find consideration in the money and time the buyer puts into removing contingencies. I just think it’s a good idea for the buyer to give the seller a certain amount of money that is itrevocable so that there is consideration on the buyers part. Can’t hurt.[/quote]Yeah, I like the idea of the $100 set aside for that purpose.
A buyer whose seller backed out “could” have their own house in escrow and some or all of their stuff in storage. They also could have given notice for the rental they are occupying and a new tenant had already been found by their LL, esp in most urban coastal areas of CA where the vacancy rate is <=3%. The buyer could also have money wrapped up in a physical inspection and/or engineer's report and have a rate lock that is soon to expire. So the buyer can be "damaged" if their seller pulls this stunt. I'm just wondering if a hundred or a few hundred non-refundable deposit from a buyer plus the buyer insisting on that extra language in the contract (as suggested in your link) might deter some sellers from accepting their offer ... especially if their listed property lies in an area with a critical shortage of housing, such as Silicon Valley. Maybe some of these sellers are so cocky that they think qualified buyers who will "overpay" for their property are a dime a dozen.[/quote] Or maybe savvy ones like having an out. It's not a deposit, technically. It would be something akin to paying for an option contract to consider the house for a certain period of time. Deposits are refundable. The first paragraph has to do with detrimental reliance or promissory estoppel. You get different damages for those sorts of things when it comes to real estate I think. . . and now I think I have exhausted my limited knowledge of real property law.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This timely chart was in my e-mail this morning:
http://journal.firsttuesday.us/wp-content/uploads/Buyer-Seller-Breach.png%5B/quote%5D
Thanks BG-but this chart relates to situations where an enforceable contract is in place. You can’t breach a contract until it exists. The question is when does the contract come into being. To summarize-if the buyer can walk away at any time until the contingencies are removed, it’s not a real contract. The Steiner case sort of suggests that if the buyer can walk away then the seller should be able to walk away too. Once the buyer can’t walk away then there is consideration and an enforceable contract comes into being. I am not saying this is settled law. It could be that court could find consideration in the money and time the buyer puts into removing contingencies. I just think it’s a good idea for the buyer to give the seller a certain amount of money that is itrevocable so that there is consideration on the buyers part. Can’t hurt.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi]Shoveler, so you think that I could sue for specified performance and legal fees, and expect to win?[/quote]
I don’t know but this case caused some changes in CA. It suggests that since the buyer can back out at any time until the contingencies are removed, a residential real estate contract is actually a unilateral option contract unsupported by consideration – and therefore unenforceable. I’m going to look more closely at it before I buy another house :
Very interesting.
Sounds like the seller can cancel.
Of course, as suggested on the link provided by geedup, the seller can be sued by the agent for commissions and by buyer for costs such as appraisal and inspection. But the seller cannot be sued for specific performance unless buyer posted non refundable option payment.
The possibility of being sued for commissions maybe be enough to nudge seller to go ahead with the transaction.[/quote]
Again – I’m not a real estate attorney. But, hypothetically, if no contract is formed (as is suggested by the Steiner case) until buyer supplies irrevocable consideration, then no one has a cause of action (buyer, agents, etc.) until that time.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Shoveler, so you think that I could sue for specified performance and legal fees, and expect to win?[/quote]
I don’t know but this case caused some changes in CA. It suggests that since the buyer can back out at any time until the contingencies are removed, a residential real estate contract is actually a unilateral option contract unsupported by consideration – and therefore unenforceable. I’m going to look more closely at it before I buy another house :
Protecting Your Purchase Agreement From Termination As a Unilateral Option Agreement
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
I wonder why there are so many angry people. What exactly are they upset about?
In the aggregate, things are pretty good. I read the economist and we seem to be managing our affairs pretty well compared to be rest of the world.[/quote]
For 80% of our population their economic situation is getting more precarious, not better. Couple that with the chronic noise stream of rhetoric and their BS meter going off every time a politician opens their mouth and the anger a fascination with no filter Trump is pretty clear, IMHO.[/quote]
I think it’s the constant barrage from media of all types reminding us of the jerky things politicians say, the criminal things that people do (be it minorities, police, large corporations, etc.) the things that we don’t have ($, looks, 2% body fat, a full head of hair, runaway libido, fantastic house, rousing social life, etc.) and so on. Every time I look at the news I get mad about something – but for some reason I can’t look away. I long for Walter Cronkite.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Not so simple:
If everyone will be driven door to door with little walking and little cycling, we’ll end up with more obese cripples with bad knees at age 55, not healthier people. Policy should exist to encourage exercise and human mobility as part of urban design — it’s a lot easier to exercise when you have no choice vs going to the gym and running like a hamster on a bloody wheel.Policy should be towards better health care and urban design so that most people don’t have to live as long as cripples before they kick the bucket. People usually don’t end up crippled when they’re old if they’ve made good choices.
Blindness often comes from diabetes (due to inactivity), so do things like kidney and walking impairment. Which is a nice way to say losing limbs.[/quote]
For once I basically agree with you. But, for example, my MIL (who I love) is 93 and sharp as a tack. She is also very proud and likes to be independent. Unfortunately, the cartilage in her knees is gone – and health conditions prevent knee replacement. So she has a hard time going out and can’t drive – and it bugs her to death. I agree healthy habits should be strongly encouraged, but at some point we will all need help.
According to a statistic I read years ago, children born in 1999 were the first to have a 50/50 chance of living to be 100. Bodies were not meant to last that long and regardless of habits, the majority of people will develop disabilities when they live past 80 or so. My dad was lucky – he was still walking a few miles a day at 84 when he developed a very rapidly progressing terminal illness. He only lived a few months in a diminished state. My mother, on the other hand, has had numerous auto immune illnesses (seems to be correlated with having kids, which I guess is a choice) which have incapacitated her. Their habits were very similar.
We want to believe we have control over these things, but genetics plays an enormous role . . .
And in terms of not wanting to get old, Roger Daltrey is 71.
Participant[quote=spdrun]njtosd: I hope to die before I’m gimped to that point — I’d consider that a life unworthy of living.
.[/quote]But (I’m sure you will be shocked to hear) public policy isn’t just for your benefit. We need to consider the greater good. And everyone says they don’t want to live in a diminished condition, until they get older and consider the alternative.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
Also, I think some of the innovations coming out of Sillycu*t Valley like self-driving cars will be actively socially and environmentally harmful.
[/quote]
Have you considered the issues facing elderly who cannot drive due to eyesight problems or disease (Parkinson’s)? They are trapped in their homes and currently can’t get out independently. I can’t imagine a life where I had to recruit someone else every time I wanted to go out. Plus, these people often have money that they would spend if they could get to the store. So I think these cars have significant potential for social good.
Participant[quote=spdrun]You’re more likely to be accidentally shot in the foot by a family member cleaning their gun than be hurt by a terrorist. Yet people scream whenever slight restrictions on firearms are created, despite that laws are looser now than 20-30 years ago.[/quote]
Actually, 2/3 of gun related deaths in the US are suicides. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
Would those deaths disappear if there were no guns? Would changing the current gun laws decrease the likelihood of suicide? Hard to say, but since we are about the middle of the pack (maybe a little higher than average) compared to European countries, the likelihood is that it wouldn’t change much. And the rate of suicide among the elderly is going up in a way that’s very frightening: http://gerocentral.org/clinical-toolbox/clinical-issues/suicide-2/
These sort of stats are largely ignored – because people don’t feel threatened by other people’s suicides, especially when they are old (and most commonly old white men).
With respect to the other 1/3 of gun deaths, I think changing the gun laws will do little good. Switzerland is an often cited example (http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/) of a place where guns are common but gun violence is uncommon.
I don’t like guns, I’ve never owned a gun but just as money doesn’t buy happiness, gun laws don’t buy safety. There are clearly other factors at work that no one seems to be paying attention to. Children could buy hunting rifles at department stores in the 60s, but we didn’t have the problems we do now.
And Brian, referring to your earlier post – I am a scientist. Data is important. At one point people laughed at those that thought the world was round. Challenge your assumptions – and maybe you’ll learn something ;).
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
Show me the statistics – I’ve looked and can’t find them.
[/quote]There are surveys of rural Americans asked about their top concerns.
[/quote]
Show me where. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Fear of Islam is higher in rural America than in New york city. [/quote]
Show me the statistics – I’ve looked and can’t find them.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
Fear of Hispanic invasion is higher in West Virginia than in San Diego, right next to the border.
[/quote]
Ditto
[quote=FlyerInHi]
Those are just a few examples. I believe we need a sociology professor rather than a biology professor to succinctly explain why.[/quote]Sociology is just macrobiology. I’d much rather understand the biological underpinnings of things that have actually been shown to exist.
Participant[quote=spdrun]You’re being too charitable: the average American is a mouth-breathing, fearful little twit. It’s not only fear of terrorism, it’s fear of crime (which has gone down in the last 30 years). I’ve heard people say, with a straight face, that they’d not go to a state which didn’t allow them to carry a gun because they wouldn’t feel safe. While looking like a heart attack on the hoof.[/quote]
Fear drives every person and every animal. You fear that people will think you’re the average American (or that people will know you have fears). All the animals that didn’t fear things ended up as another animal’s lunch, so we’re all descendants of the fearful ones, and we have their genes. So lets get off this idea that you’re Mr. Brave and the people you despise are fearful. Women are at least as fearful as men and they don’t carry guns at the same rate – so why is that?
Participant[quote=svelte]that’s what we like about the WW app. It has pre-calculated what virtually any meal from a chain restaurant will cost you, and virtually any food in a grocery store….easy to keep track.
By the way, we’re down over 50 lbs between us since Sept 1. I’m at my goal, my wife has a bit more to go. Total eatstyle change. and the food is just as delicious as before.[/quote]
So you’re living up to your screen name! Congrats!
ParticipantMy daughter buries our dead fish in the area down the street from us that is sort of “natural”. She uses old gift cards (used up) as grave markers – covers them in duct tape and writes epitaphs on them with a Sharpie. The area is known in our family as Oreo’s graveyard.
I agree with you – the loss of a pet is terrible.
-
AuthorPosts
