Notice handed in getting nasty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sonny: well said! I don't get the argument that something is immoral unless one is forced to do it (when it suddenly becomes moral?) either. As you say, what is "forced"? Someone put a gun to the head of your first born? Or you had a bad day at the office, and you thought you were "forced" to act?

It's all shades of grey out there in the real world, I'm afraid......
 
Let's reduce this to as simple an argument as possible.

1) You are a cash buyer of an investment property
2) You see an apartment you like, and after negotiation, you agree to pay €200k for it subject to survey and contract.
3) The surveyor says it's fine
4) The other side does everything promptly and sends the contracts to your solicitor
5) Your solicitor has the contracts and says title is fine, come on in and sign.

Then an identical apartment goes for sale in the same block for €180k.

The law is very clear here. You can walk away because you have not both signed the contract.
There are no repercussions for you. They can't sue you. They can't give you a bad reference.

Do you walk away?
Do you honour your agreement to buy?
Do you reopen negotiations for a lower price?
 
ang1170 said:
Sonny: well said! I don't get the argument that something is immoral unless one is forced to do it (when it suddenly becomes moral?) either.
Click to expand...

People were making comparisons with mortgage arrears.

Strategic default is morally wrong.

Breaking your mortgage contract because you lost your job is not morally wrong. It's not a choice you make.
 

As I said, the more examples you give, the more you prove the point: what is the "right" thing to do depends on the circumstances. People's views change, depending on what those circumstances are. Not everyone will have the same opinion as it is essentially a value judgement. Declaring one course of action as always immoral doesn't make sense to me, especially if the person doing it is making a lot of assumptions about what the individual circumstances are.
 
Hi Ang

And what would you do in the circumstances outlined?

I am trying to establish what the guidelines are.

Brendan
 

First off, what makes you think say that people can't sue. People are perfectly entitled to sue and let a Court decide. Just because there isn't a signed contract doesn't legally mean there wasn't a contract. That's why we need expensive solicitors and barristers to argue different view points.

Secondly, what would you tell someone that came on AAM and said that they had an offer on a house accepted but no contracts had been signed. It was really going to push them financially but they think they might just be able to be able to make it work. Then an identical house came on the market that cost €30k less and put less stress on their personal finances. Would you tell them that

a) Their word is their bond and they should suck it up
b) Renegotiate but realise you have no negotiating power
c) Get legal advice to see if there are any legal repercussions for walking away and do what is right for them.
 
Sunny said:
First off, what makes you think say that people can't sue. People are perfectly entitled to sue and let a Court decide. Just because there isn't a signed contract doesn't legally mean there wasn't a contract.
Click to expand...

The conveyancing acts are clear, which is why I have used this example. There is no contract until both sides have signed.

What would you do Sunny?

I have removed all the distractions and reduced to a simple question to establish what you think that the right thing to do in these circumstances would be.

You can afford to buy it.
It's exactly as you thought you were buying.
The title is correct.
There are no repercussions for you for changing your mind.

Brendan
 
Let me throw a scenario at you Brendan, and I'm sorry that it doesn't involve mortgages (seeing as you'd seem to prefer to discuss that!)...

Lets say the contract says 3 months notice, but no-one in the place is ever actually asked to work in the full notice period. So you've worked there a few years and seen other people in the same or similar roles come and go at 4 - 6 weeks' notice without difficulty... so you, for whatever reason, have an offer elsewhere and think it's safe to assume that 4 - 6 weeks notice shouldn't be a problem based on everything you've ever seen happening in reality in that workplace, and based on the fact that you know your job isn't one which would take more than a couple of weeks to fill.

But then, for purely personal reasons, the MD decides that they are going to make your life difficult and they throw in your face a contract that says you're legally obliged to give 3 months notice - you say ah hold on now, haven't I been a good employee and often worked above, beyond and outside of the terms of what you contracted me to do...?! (Sunny's posts refer) And they sneer and say, "I don't care, you signed the contract so we're holding you to it!".

In that circumstance, if it were you, can you honestly say that having exhausted the negotiation route, you'd sit there and serve out the notice period?! And bear in mind that having given the notice, you're going to be out of a job in 3 months, and if the other employer won't hold that position, you're completely goosed, unemployed and without entitlement to JSB for 9(?) weeks...

I have to say Brendan if your answer is yes, then you're a true martyr to contract law.

Although, at least on the good side, when you're unemployed and upsidedown on your mortgage, you can go to AAM to get good advice on going bankrupt in the UK...
 

There is nothing in the conveyancing laws to stop me from sueing a person who pulled out of a sale and left me with expenses. I mightn't be able to enforce the contract but I could recover costs.

I would do what is right for me and my family and if that meant walking away, I would walk away. Would I feel bad? Yes. Would I understand if the seller took me to Court to recover costs? Yes. Would I feel guilty everytime I walked into my cheaper house, then no.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should fulfil contracts that have no legal enforcability even if it leaves them tens of thousands worse off simply because they said they would do something?
 
Sunny said:
I would do what is right for me and my family and if that meant walking away, I would walk away.
Click to expand...

Hi Sunny

I specified that it was an investment property so it's not your family home.

Thanks for answering the question.

I think it clarifies that there is a fairly large gap in what I consider the right thing to do is and what you think the right thing to do is.

You have an agreement, but you will walk away from it if it's not right for you.

There is no nasty employer to blame; there is no greedy lender; there is no element of you having no alternative; There is no quibble about legalities of contracts.

You entered an agreement.
You can fulfill that agreement.
Yet you simply walk away from it if it no longer suits you.

I don't think think that is the right thing to do.

Actually, I think it's a lousy thing to do to the seller, and possibly their family, and possibly others in a property chain. But hey, you will do what is right for you.
 
This is ridiculous Brendan. Why are you differentiating between family home and investment property?

You can make whatever judgements you want about my moral character but if you are honestly telling me that you wouldn't advise a poster to examine all their options if they found themselves in a position where they might be paying tens of thousands more for a property simply because its the right thing to do by your moral compass then your advice needs to come with a serious health warning.

I have no idea why you are talking about nasty employers or greedy lenders. Are you implying that I am some sort of anti capitalist crusade or something?

Anyway, this has gone beyond ridiculous and I have to say I am actually amazed at how this thread has gone. I will leave others to judge my morals by reading my posts in full but I am bowing out. Mad stuff.
 
Sunny said:
Why are you differentiating between family home and investment property?
Click to expand...

For the very simple reason, I wanted to reduce this question to the absolute basic issue - do you keep your word or not?

I anticipated that someone would say that they would compromise their own principles for the benefit of their family. So I made it a pure financial decision - an investment property bought with cash.

It was a transaction with another individual - so no one can claim they were just screwing a bank or an employer, which some people might think is fair game.

And it is quite clear from the responses of Sunny and ang, that you would do what suits you, irrespective of what you had agreed.

I would be interested in knowing what others would do under the circumstances?
 
Sunny said:
Anyway, this has gone beyond ridiculous and I have to say I am actually amazed at how this thread has gone. I will leave others to judge my morals by reading my posts in full but I am bowing out. Mad stuff.
Click to expand...
.

Agree fully. I respect your contributions on most topics, which surprises me that you would renege on an agreement because it suited you.
 
Is there any chance you might address my post Brendan? This whole thread has gone completely off topic.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
And it is quite clear from the responses of Sunny and ang, that you would do what suits you, irrespective of what you had agreed.
Click to expand...

You continue to misrepresent others: I stated quite explicitly I would take the same course of action you suggested in the cases presented.

My position is quite clear: you decide on the right course of action based on the particular circumstances presented.

Your own position is actually identical, though you seem completely blind to it. The difference between "when it suits you" and "when forced" is just terminology and degree. As I said, I'd take the same decision as you in this case.

Where we do differ, though, is that I won't sit in judgement of others who take a different view to me when I know for a fact I don't have all the information about those circumstances, nor would I use abusive or condescending language in engaging with them.
 
Hi ang

Sorry to misrepresent you.

I set out a simple scenario. Sunny said he would do what was right for him.
I criticised this
You said "It must be a bit lonely for you up there on the high moral ground..... "

Now you say

My position is quite clear: you decide on the right course of action based on the particular circumstances presented.

Your own position is actually identical,
Click to expand...

At least I have company on the high moral ground.
 
mandelbrot said:
Is there any chance you might address my post Brendan? This whole thread has gone completely off topic.
Click to expand...

It's pointless answering it without establishing the first principles.

I set out a very simple scenario to establish a principle. What is the right thing to do in a simple scenario.

Sunny has replied.
I thought Ang had replied, but he hasn't.

Feel free to respond to the simple scenario.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
At least I have company on the high moral ground.
Click to expand...

No actually: too lonely up there for me, I'm afraid.

What I said was "Where we do differ, though, is that I won't sit in judgement of others who take a different view to me when I know for a fact I don't have all the information about those circumstances, nor would I use abusive or condescending language in engaging with them. "
 
Brendan Burgess said:
For the very simple reason, I wanted to reduce this question to the absolute basic issue - do you keep your word or not?
Click to expand...
Is there a conflict with your tactical advice to this gent not to pay his mortgage?

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634

I know that it has emerged that he's not actually paying it at the moment, but it seemed to me that your advice not to pay was as a negotiation tactic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register