when one is contractually obliged to purchase a dwelling.

Hi,

Was wondering when one is contractually obliged to purchase a dwelling.

If contracts are signed by both parties and the purchaser pulls the deal (due to circumstances change) prior to exchange/return of contracts from vendor, are they still contractually bound to closing, or can they be forced to close and sued for breach of contract.

thanks
C

yes, the vendor can sue for performance of the contract. But you cannot get blood from a stone.


Contracts normally have closing dates built in, .. when the actual transfer of cash takes place, and transfer of ownership and the deeds etc happens. But once the seller signs a previously signed contract by the buyer, then the contract is in force and can be sued for in court.

Hi Colm

I got your private message. No, I'm not a solicitor. (even if I was my advice wouldn't be a 'legal opinion' as you're not my client)

You likely have a solicitor, you should ask him for advice. Clearly you need professional advice for such an expensive thing like a house sale.


I'd be surprised if a buyer could cancel on the grounds that he didn't receive a copy of the signed contract. Any buyer could easily lie about that.

Your solicitor would be going to court with your signed copy of the contract,... and your buyer would have the same contract. If the buyer loses the contract then he has no contract but is still bound, ... you can still enforce your copy.


I'd suggest you get a solicitor, and you ask him to ensure, with 100% certainity, that you are performing your side of the contract, and not to allow any reason for a pullout by the other side..

Contracts

Hi Colm 5
We are currently going through the process of selling our house, we signed contracts last week. The purchaser signed the contract first and then sent it to our solicitor for us to sign.

Our solicitor told us that the contract would not be binding until the purchaser had received a copy of the signed contract (signed by both parties).

No contract exists until both have signed the contract.

Either party can pull out before then.

Carmel said:

Hi Colm 5
...
Our solicitor told us that the contract would not be binding until the purchaser had received a copy of the signed contract (signed by both parties).

Click to expand...

Hmmm, is that correct?

How is the signed contract to be delivered to the buyer? What if he refuses to accept it, is the contract null and voided due to non-delivery? Surely the best that the seller can do is to attempt delivery...


I'd respectfully suggest that your solicitor is wrong,.. although it would seem that it's probably more likely that I am. I'd be interested in knowing the answer to this for certain.


So a seller, who has a correctly signed contract, signed by both parties, can still lose a court case if he cannot demonstrate delivery of the signed contract?

Hi Joe,
I guess the solicitor would receive it on the buyers behalf.
This is what I was told too, but then was told that it is 'grey', and as we know grey is not good, and expensive
How it could be grey is strange, either contractually bound on signing or on exchange of contracts would be straight forward.
The circumstances may matter of why the buyer terminated the sale..couldn't get a mortgage, lost job, decided not to proceed, etc..
C

I don't know to be honest.

I do know that a certain point must be picked, where a binding contract is entered into, where there was no binding contract a moment previously. I'd always thought that this was when the seller signed, after the buyer has signed.


In your case it sounds as if the buyer signed, and quickly panicked, and wanted to cancel. There could very well be a very good reason for cancelling too. But they'd already sent the forms off.

If you'd received the forms and signed them in good faith before the cancellation I'd imagine it's binding. But no blood from stones in the end.

If the cancellation came through before you'd signed I'm not sure. If you admitted that then perhaps not binding.

If there is a rule about delivery then it goes by the rule. There's probably no case law testing the interpretation put on 'the rule' so that might account for the grayness of this area.

Moral rules would be different to legal ones. If the circumstances were genuine you may have to let them go, gracefully enough. Otherwise get legal advice. Maybe keep the deposit. I'd have thought the legal situation was pretty simple, perhaps the opposite of what I've said, but still one way or the other.