# hiccup at solictors!



## karenkarenk (12 Mar 2009)

about 3 years ago we were selling our house. we had a buyer, they had signed all paperwork as had we, at the solictors. we were told that we were just waiting to hand over keys ....a week or so later our solictor told us that the buyer had pulled out. i thought at the time that we were told that the buyer was liable to 10 % of the sale price if they pulled out at that time. however our solictor said that the buyers solictor had put a clause in their contract that allowed tham to pull out at that point with no penalty.....we were a bit younger and naive then.... but it has always stayed with me and niggled that something doesnt sound write about it..... also the woman we were dealing with suddenly left without us kmowing about it after that had happened???? should i contact the solictors office about it? is there something fishy about what happened??
thanks


----------



## mf1 (12 Mar 2009)

Sorry, its three years later? 

The time to ask about it was then. Did you not ask for something in writing? Something in clarification? Otherwise, you'd have been sitting there  with your bags packed and somewhere else to move to. 

If it was a case that the buyers definitely wanted to buy, and you definitely wanted to sell  and your solicitor messed it up, I can see the problem. 

But it sounds ( on the basis of  very scant info) more like your buyers could not get their funding or got cold feet and it may well have been pointless pursuing them. 

mf


----------



## Mommah (12 Mar 2009)

I'm hearing that you suspect the solicitor might actually have kept the buyers deposit?

I would say surely you have a copy of the contracts and can check for that clause....but I know myself that my solicitor was VERY reluctant to let me copy the documents I was signing for whatever reason.

The only way you could check is by asking the failed buyers, if they did loose their deposit....if you have any contact details for them.


----------



## jhegarty (12 Mar 2009)

Have you checked to contract to see if such a clause did exist ?


----------



## Card (12 Mar 2009)

i would suspect also that the solicitor should have checked with the OP before allowing the insertion of a clause allowing the purchaser's deposit to be refunded. Such a clause would not be standard and should the OP not have been alerted to this?


----------



## MOB (12 Mar 2009)

There are a number of possible explanations:

1. Solicitor did a bunk with the deposit.   Theoretically possible, but no basis in reality.  I certainly don't believe it happened.

2.  There was a patently unreasonable clause which basically said "we can pull out without penalty if we like at any time" which the solicitor should have spotted and insisted be removed.   As previous poster says, such a clause would not be standard.  Slim possibility.  Certainly can't rule it out.  But most unlikely.

3.  There was a relatively standard clause to say that the contract was subject to loan approval, satisfactory survey or other 'normal' contingency, and buyer relied upon this in pulling out.  This, I raather suspect, is the most likely explanation of what happened.

I would always ask a client vendor whether they want to sign a contract with such a contingency inserted, or whether they would prefer to simply give the buyer time to sort out loan\survey\life insurance\whatever and then sign an unconditional contract; 

Signing of a contract with such a contingency clause is perfectly normal.  Not making client aware that there was such a clause is a bit slack, but such clauses are almost normal\standard ( certainly for loan approval) - so I can see how some solicitors might (wrongly in my view) feel that they had things covered without such clause being very particularly being drawn to client's attention.   Of course, I do not rule out the possibility that it was mentioned to client, but client failed to take it on board.

So: most likely explanation is that the solicitor could perhaps have done a wee bit better on the communications front at time of signing contracts, but that's it.   No negligence.  Probably a complete waste of time pursuing this at the time.  Certainly a complete waste of time doing so now.


----------



## Caveat (12 Mar 2009)

Not the same crowd again Karen?


----------



## mercman (12 Mar 2009)

Did you sell the property at the same price or in fact a better price ??
The three years makes no difference - the statute of limitations lasts for six years so you well within your rights. However if the failed transaction did not cost you any money what is your angle ?
The solicitor is duty bound to advise you of any non standard items placed in the contract by the other side.
I wouldn't contact the solicitors office yet until all the facts are in front of you. However ask them for a copy of the contract that had the insertion by the purchasers solicitors.


----------



## Smashbox (12 Mar 2009)

Why did it take you three years to think about it? I'm not really sure where you'd get now after so long.


----------



## karenkarenk (12 Mar 2009)

i guess my angle is...that a friend said at the time, that the failed purchaser was duty bound to pay me 10% of the sale price when the sale fell thru, because the paperwork had all been signed...(basically the house was sold)... i had never heard of that and now possibly naively, i let it pass as the solictor said that there was this clause.. and i believed her. so here i am 3 years later.. something came up in conversation with my husband the other evening and i mentioned that the above situation had always niggled at me...so i'm seekin info about it...ie is there a 10% amount payable to me?and how do i go about finding out if something weird happened?
our house sold quickly after the first sale fell thru', i guess i just let the other issue slide.
thanks


----------



## Kate10 (12 Mar 2009)

Hi Karen,

Have a look again at MOB's post.  I agree with his (her?) opinion. 

Standard contracts require the payment of a 10% deposit which is forfeit (kept by the vendor) if the buyer defaults.  However it is also very very common to have a clause making the contract conditional on something - e.g. the purchaser signs the contract subject to him being able to get a loan from a bank to buy the property.  If he can't get a loan he's allowed to pull out and get his deposit back.

In this day and age very few vendors would sign a contract like that because it would probably be a waste of time.  But three years ago it was more common.

I also agree with MOB that your solicitor should have explained the fact that the contracts were conditional when you were signing them.  But it was three years ago and maybe you have forgotten some of what was said at the time.

Kate.


----------



## Optimist (12 Mar 2009)

MOB and Kate10 have summed up your situation imho


----------



## Optimist (12 Mar 2009)

Caveat said:


> Not the same crowd again Karen?


 
I guess what goes around really does come around!!! Sorry, absolutely no sympathy for OP.....


----------



## karenkarenk (15 Mar 2009)

sorry what is OP?
 what are you referring to by what goes around comes around?
thanks


----------



## mercman (15 Mar 2009)

The OP is the 'original poster', which is this case is you. The rest of your question is a smart alec point which bears no relevance to your beef.


----------



## karenkarenk (15 Mar 2009)

thanks mercman............i've come across some strange personal judgments going on with some people on this site ....strange seeing as the last one called themselves optimist!!!! and for your info optimist... iwasnt looking for sympathy!! really dont need it!!! lol


----------



## Optimist (15 Mar 2009)

karenkarenk said:


> sorry what is OP?
> what are you referring to by what goes around comes around?
> thanks


 
My reply (whilst being of no relevance to your current issue I admit) is a comment on the irony of this post which is querying whether you are owed money by a solicitor. Your other post which was linked to above showed a distinct unwillingness on your behalf to pay money which _you_ owed to a solicitor. 

(If there are deeper underlying issues here which justify your stance then I apologise for judging you!)


----------



## karenkarenk (15 Mar 2009)

if you were on the ball....and your not! you'd realise that they were asking for money that i didnt owe them!! i was definitely unwilling to pay that!!
the previous issue was paid for in full at the time. due to "bad filing" practices at their office they rang me looking for money _*6 years *_after i signed sealed and was delivered my new house, but i accept your apology!!!as i did theirs! lol. i was completely in the right and received a letter from them saying so. this other issue occurred 3 years ago and i ask the question now probably because it has always niggled at me because they came across as a little unprofessional at the time and now having had the problem with the other solictor because of "bad filing", i will probably always query their actions. i think i'm right.!!


----------



## Optimist (15 Mar 2009)

I guess if I had bothered to read all 5 pages of the other thread I would have known that....... lesson learned!


----------



## karenkarenk (15 Mar 2009)

oh.... its ok!!


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2009)

OP can you just go and ask your solicitor for a copy of the contract and see if there is a get out clause which in all probability there is.


----------

