Going unconditional on a house sale
ofn01
is there no re-signing of the Sale&Purchase agreement or anything?
Eustace.T...@gmail.com
> When you go unconditional on a house sale do you simply pay the deposit & indicate that you're happy?
>
> is there no re-signing of the Sale&Purchase agreement or anything?
Don't think so, the negotiations have been done, and the conditions
met= unconditional....
Robert Howard
"ofn01" <of...@nowhere.not.nz> wrote in message
news:47f46a96$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
When you go unconditional on a house sale do you simply pay the deposit &
indicate that you're happy?
is there no re-signing of the Sale&Purchase agreement or anything?
No, the contract just carries on. Incidentally you don't have to pay a
deposit or pay the full amount requested. Agents only take a deposit to make
sure they get their commission in case the deal falls through no fault of
theirs.
Bob Howard.
Fred
"Robert Howard" <rfho...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1207202861.359604@ftpsrv1...
contracted to pay, which will be on the sale and purchase agreement. You
don't have to indicate you're happy - you might be bloody miserable, you
miht have changed your mind about the purchase even, but you are comitted
once the conditions you have agree to with the vendor have been met.
Crash
wrote:
>When you go unconditional on a house sale do you simply pay the deposit & indicate that you're happy?
>
>is there no re-signing of the Sale&Purchase agreement or anything?
In my experience:
- Once the agreement is accepted by both parties (including the
conditions) any deposit agreed to is payable to the real estate agency
who hold it in trust. This is intended to as a show of good intent on
the part of the buyer - willing to part with a reasonable chunk of
money.
- If there are any conditions then there is usually an associated
time limit. Typical conditions are that the buyer can arrange
purchase finance and get a builders report that finds no major
building faults, that the buyer's solicitor finds that the property
has clear title, etc. The seller can also include conditions - but in
a buyers market this is rare.
- If any of the conditions are not met in the stipulated timeframe
the agreement lapses and the deposit is usually refunded in full.
- If all the conditions are met then the offer becomes unconditional.
The agreement will stipulate when full and final settlement is due and
both parties are bound by this - the buyer must pay up on or before
the date stipulated and the seller is usually required to give vacant
possession on settlement date.
Typically nothing actually happens when all the conditions are met
within the stipulated timeframe and everything related to what is due
when is specified. So - just look that the agreement for the details.
Crash.
Fred
"Crash" <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote in message
news:9a09v393mskna85d9...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:24:56 +1300, "ofn01" <of...@nowhere.not.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>When you go unconditional on a house sale do you simply pay the deposit &
>>indicate that you're happy?
>>
>>is there no re-signing of the Sale&Purchase agreement or anything?
>
> In my experience:
>
> - Once the agreement is accepted by both parties (including the
> conditions) any deposit agreed to is payable to the real estate agency
> who hold it in trust. This is intended to as a show of good intent on
> the part of the buyer - willing to part with a reasonable chunk of
> money.
>
In many parts of NZ the deposit is only paid if or when the agreement
becomes unconditional.
frederick
last small slump in the '90s. They typically had small deposits -$20k
or so on $500k apartments that they expected to stag for >$600k, but
eventually worth only about $400k on completion (NOT the developer's
fault that the market dropped)
The investors thought it was a bit unfair for the developer to sue their
arses for the difference of $80k if they didn't settle, having resigned
themselves to pulling out and merely losing the deposit. The courts
didn't agree with them. This will happen again.
Robert Howard
"Fred" <gen...@zaradise.net.uk> wrote in message
news:47f4...@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Robert Howard" <rfho...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1207202861.359604@ftpsrv1...
>>
>> "ofn01" <of...@nowhere.not.nz> wrote in message
>> news:47f46a96$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> That is not the only reason for a deposit. You must pay what you've
> contracted to pay, which will be on the sale and purchase agreement. You
> don't have to indicate you're happy - you might be bloody miserable, you
> miht have changed your mind about the purchase even, but you are comitted
> once the conditions you have agree to with the vendor have been met.
You don't have to pay a deposit. The commission will be taken out of the
purchase money before being handed over. As I said it is only asked for so
the agent gets his money first. If no deposit is paid and the deal falls
through the agent has the job of getting his money out of the seller because
he has done his bit. Most sellers are tricked into thinking they have to
pay. A hypothetical case might be that a buyer signs, the deal becomes
unconditional then he shoots through without paying. The agent considers he
has done his job bringing a deal to unconditional and wants his commission.
If he has a deposit he has it but there is nothing to say a deposit must be
paid.
Bob Howard.
Laissez-faire
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:24:56 +1300, "ofn01"
> <of...@nowhere.not.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> When you go unconditional on a house sale do you simply pay
>> the
>> deposit & indicate that you're happy?
>>
>> is there no re-signing of the Sale&Purchase agreement or
>> anything?
>
> In my experience:
>
> - Once the agreement is accepted by both parties (including the
> conditions) any deposit agreed to is payable to the real estate
> agency
> who hold it in trust. This is intended to as a show of good
> intent on
> the part of the buyer - willing to part with a reasonable chunk
> of
> money.
That's bullshit. They may say that to apply a 'guilt' trip upon
someone. But a deposit is not a legal requirement, nor is it even
a moral obligation.
It is merely to enable RE agencies to get their fees if the deal
goes belly up in some way.
In fact, you could even write your own sales agreement and make
the RE agents adhere to that. And while you're at it, negotiate
their fee on your terms, too. They are far too greedy imo.
Recently they have increased their fees. Why? House prices are
going up all the time... so why do they suddenly want more of a
cut? Simply because they can get away with it and the suckers
keep on paying.
You can change the contract to whatever YOU want when signing up
to buy/sell a property.
Laissez-faire
Yep. And also consider that probably 90% of RE agents are Johnny
Come Lately's and think they can make an easy killing.
Also about 80% (probably) of RE agents don't even make a liveable
income.
It's all a bit of a sham really. The number of genuine agents who
honestly seek to help others with their buying and selling are
but a tiny % unfortunately.
But a good agent can literally be worth his weight in gold.
EMB
> "Fred" <gen...@zaradise.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:47f4...@clear.net.nz...
>> "Robert Howard" <rfho...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1207202861.359604@ftpsrv1...
>>> "ofn01" <of...@nowhere.not.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:47f46a96$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
>> That is not the only reason for a deposit. You must pay what you've
>> contracted to pay, which will be on the sale and purchase agreement. You
>> don't have to indicate you're happy - you might be bloody miserable, you
>> miht have changed your mind about the purchase even, but you are comitted
>> once the conditions you have agree to with the vendor have been met.
>
> You don't have to pay a deposit.
And if you do have to pay a deposit, pay it to the vendor's solicitor,
cutting the agent out of the process completely. The agent will spit
and scream but there's nothing they can do about it.
Laissez-faire
Yeah.
Crash
Read my post again. Note the words 'any deposit agreed to' . That
wording was deliberate and means precisely that the amount of the
deposit is part of the (negotiated) sale agreement. Nowhere did I say
or imply compulsion.
Crash.
peterwn
>
> You don't have to pay a deposit.
Any agent worth his salt should demand a deposit and you have three
days to cough up. If you do not pay up, then you risk being gazumped,
that is the vendor accepting an offer from someone else. The vendor
is still able to enforce the contract against the purchaser whether or
not the deposit has been paid. I would go further and suggest that
the vendor can successfully screw an unpaid deposit out of a purchaser
(Garrett v Ikeda [2002] 1 NZLR 577) even where the vendor cancels the
contract for non payment of deposit and even where the vendor suffers
no actual loss.
Therefore not paying a deposit on an unconditional contract when the
vendor demands it is playing with fire.
Laissez-faire
I know. I was saying it's bullshit (no disrepect intended to you)
that the deposit is a sign of goodwill and that RE agents will
say things like that to guilt-trip and manipulate you into paying
one.
So perhaps you should read what I wrote again.
Laissez-faire
> On Apr 3, 8:35 pm, "Robert Howard" <rfhow...@slingshot.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You don't have to pay a deposit.
>
> Any agent worth his salt should demand a deposit and you have
> three
> days to cough up.
Bullshit. The contract should be made on your terms as much as
possible, definitely not a RE agent's terms.
> If you do not pay up, then you risk being gazumped,
> that is the vendor accepting an offer from someone else. The
> vendor
> is still able to enforce the contract against the purchaser
> whether or
> not the deposit has been paid.
Correct; and that shows why a deposit is not necessary. It is NOT
mandatory, nor is it a moral obligation in any way whatsoever.
You can set your own terms. Of course there are times when a
deposit will indeed perhaps be necessary to cement a deal.
> I would go further and suggest that
> the vendor can successfully screw an unpaid deposit out of a
> purchaser
> (Garrett v Ikeda [2002] 1 NZLR 577) even where the vendor
> cancels the
> contract for non payment of deposit and even where the vendor
> suffers
> no actual loss.
>
> Therefore not paying a deposit on an unconditional contract
> when the
> vendor demands it is playing with fire.
That's ONLY if you have signed a contract with an agreement to
pay a deposit.
If you have struck out the deposit clause, then NO deposit is
necessary.
What don't you understand about that?
The vendor cannot DEMAND a deposit to be paid when a contract has
been signed that does not require a deposit.
Got it?
Fred
If the contract calls for a deposit, it must be paid. The vendor has all
sorts of remedies if the agent does not or cannot collect the deposit.
Thetime to decide whether or not a deposit is paid, is when negotiating the
purchase. Obviously the purchaser will try and avoid a deposit, or pay a
bare minimum, but only a dopey vendor would enter a contract without one.
Fred
"EMB" <emb...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47f4a8ce$1...@news01.wxnz.net...
That depends on what the listing agreement, plus the sale and purchase
agreement say.
Laissez-faire
Rubbish. Nothing to do with being dopey at all.
You sound like a RE agent.
peterwn
> peterwn wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 8:35 pm, "Robert Howard" <rfhow...@slingshot.co.nz>
> > wrote:
>
> >> You don't have to pay a deposit.
>
> > Any agent worth his salt should demand a deposit and you have
> > three
> > days to cough up.
>
> Bullshit. The contract should be made on your terms as much as
> possible, definitely not a RE agent's terms.
I am talking about a sale and purchase agreement on the ADLS/REINZ fom
where a purchaser has already agreed to a 10% deposit (this apprently
being the OP's situation). Granted, you can 'butcher' the clauses if
you choose to, but this can place you at a disadvantage especially in
an auction or a tender situation.
>
> > If you do not pay up, then you risk being gazumped,
> > that is the vendor accepting an offer from someone else. The
> > vendor
> > is still able to enforce the contract against the purchaser
> > whether or
> > not the deposit has been paid.
>
> Correct; and that shows why a deposit is not necessary. It is NOT
> mandatory, nor is it a moral obligation in any way whatsoever.
Agreed, but it is a bit late if you have already signed an agreemnt
such that you agree to pay a 10% deposit in accoudance with the
standard clauses.
>
> You can set your own terms. Of course there are times when a
> deposit will indeed perhaps be necessary to cement a deal.
And the 'Of course' is important to note. the greater the desire for
the property the greater the motivation to make a 'clean' offer on the
ADLS / REINZ form.
>
> > I would go further and suggest that
> > the vendor can successfully screw an unpaid deposit out of a
> > purchaser
> > (Garrett v Ikeda [2002] 1 NZLR 577) even where the vendor
> > cancels the
> > contract for non payment of deposit and even where the vendor
> > suffers
> > no actual loss.
>
> > Therefore not paying a deposit on an unconditional contract
> > when the
> > vendor demands it is playing with fire.
>
> That's ONLY if you have signed a contract with an agreement to
> pay a deposit.
Agreed. My response assumed that the OP had already signed a standard
agreement including a 10% deposit, this being the apparent tenor of
the original posting.
>
> If you have struck out the deposit clause, then NO deposit is
> necessary.
>
> What don't you understand about that?
>
> The vendor cannot DEMAND a deposit to be paid when a contract has
> been signed that does not require a deposit.
>
> Got it?
Read the OP's posting again and go figure what the OP has most
probably done already (ie signed an agreement with 10% deposit), not
what the OP might have done if he had his time over again.
If I were selling a property, I might accept a 5% deposit and make
sure it is paid. If I received an offer with 'nil' deposit I most
probably would tell the would-be purchaser to stick it up his arse.
Laissez-faire
> On Apr 3, 10:32 pm, "Laissez-faire" <l...@leaveusalone.free>
> wrote:
>> peterwn wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 8:35 pm, "Robert Howard" <rfhow...@slingshot.co.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't have to pay a deposit.
>>
>>> Any agent worth his salt should demand a deposit and you have
>>> three
>>> days to cough up.
>>
>> Bullshit. The contract should be made on your terms as much as
>> possible, definitely not a RE agent's terms.
>
> I am talking about a sale and purchase agreement on the
> ADLS/REINZ fom
> where a purchaser has already agreed to a 10% deposit (this
> apprently
> being the OP's situation).
But NOT part of what was being discussed and which you replied
to.
> Granted, you can 'butcher' the clauses if
> you choose to, but this can place you at a disadvantage
> especially in
> an auction or a tender situation.
>
>>
>>> If you do not pay up, then you risk being gazumped,
>>> that is the vendor accepting an offer from someone else. The
>>> vendor
>>> is still able to enforce the contract against the purchaser
>>> whether or
>>> not the deposit has been paid.
>>
>> Correct; and that shows why a deposit is not necessary. It is
>> NOT
>> mandatory, nor is it a moral obligation in any way whatsoever.
>
> Agreed, but it is a bit late if you have already signed an
> agreemnt
> such that you agree to pay a 10% deposit in accoudance with the
> standard clauses.
NOT talking about that.
>> You can set your own terms. Of course there are times when a
>> deposit will indeed perhaps be necessary to cement a deal.
>
> And the 'Of course' is important to note. the greater the
> desire for
> the property the greater the motivation to make a 'clean' offer
> on the
> ADLS / REINZ form.
Not having a deposit does not make it an UNCLEAN offer or
contract. How absurd for you to suggest so.
No. YOU read the post you are replying to.
> If I were selling a property, I might accept a 5% deposit and
> make
> sure it is paid. If I received an offer with 'nil' deposit I
> most
> probably would tell the would-be purchaser to stick it up his
> arse.
And likewise you.
Crash
<l...@leaveusalone.free> wrote:
>Crash wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:45:55 +1300, "Laissez-faire"
>> <l...@leaveusalone.free> wrote:
>>
>>> Crash wrote:
[snip]
>>>>
>>>> In my experience:
>>>>
>>>> - Once the agreement is accepted by both parties (including
>>>> the
>>>> conditions) any deposit agreed to is payable to the real
>>>> estate
>>>> agency
>>>> who hold it in trust. This is intended to as a show of good
>>>> intent on
>>>> the part of the buyer - willing to part with a reasonable
>>>> chunk
>>>> of
>>>> money.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit. They may say that to apply a 'guilt' trip
>>> upon
>>> someone. But a deposit is not a legal requirement, nor is it
>>> even
>>> a moral obligation.
[snip]
>>
>> Read my post again. Note the words 'any deposit agreed to' .
>> That
>> wording was deliberate and means precisely that the amount of
>> the
>> deposit is part of the (negotiated) sale agreement. Nowhere
>> did I say
>> or imply compulsion.
>
>I know. I was saying it's bullshit (no disrepect intended to you)
>that the deposit is a sign of goodwill and that RE agents will
>say things like that to guilt-trip and manipulate you into paying
>one.
>
>So perhaps you should read what I wrote again.
>
I did - I construed your 'bullshit' comment as your assessment of what
I said and I believe this was reasonable.
When I am selling a property I am careful to instruct the agent in
what conditions I want in the sale offer and what is negotiable or
not. I always stipulate a deposit of at least 10% as not negotiable
(don't bother presenting any offer without one), payable on agreement
and fully refundable if the agreement fails because conditions are not
met. I do this purely to make sure that the buyer is serious enough
to part with dosh up front. It helps weed out the time wasters who
want stupid conditions such as 'subject to finance' (but subject to
bank approval is OK).
I am fairly certain you would never buy any of my properties ;-)
Crash.
Laissez-faire
I'm a 100% certain I wouldn't.
Deposits are the least of my worry when I buy property. I put all
sorts of creative things in contracts. But never have paid a
deposit and am never likely to. Oh, sorry, I paid $5,000 on the
1st house I bought, but then read a few books about property
investment. No more deposits after that. Just wastes my time and
why should someone else have MY money when I don't own the
property yet?
I haven't bought a place yet where the vendor's don't have a
pressing need to sell. You know what that means, right?
ofn01
"Crash" <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote in message news:k66bv3hp32ao9l6df...@4ax.com...
I think you limit your market. WE would never give a deposit until it was unconditional and do include 'subject to finance' but have gone through with the deal as we would not waste time & money on builders reports/lims etc. unless we were serious.
peterwn
>
> > And the 'Of course' is important to note. the greater the
> > desire for
> > the property the greater the motivation to make a 'clean' offer
> > on the
> > ADLS / REINZ form.
>
> Not having a deposit does not make it an UNCLEAN offer or
> contract. How absurd for you to suggest so.
>
It all depends what you mean by 'unclean'. If the vendor makes it
clear the offer is to include a 10% deposit, then any offer that
excludes the offer would be 'unclean' and the vendor may well be
tempted to reject it, especially if there is a fully compliant offer
at a similar price. Agreed there may be cases where a laid-back or
desperate vendor will accept an offer with 'nil' deposit.
The key point I was making was for the benefit of the OP - If you have
made an offer requiring a 10% deposit, you are playing with fire if
you do not pay up the deposit within 3 days of being so requested.
And to smart-alecs who think they can put in offers woth 0% deposit -
the dream property you wish to buy may disappear in a puff of smoke
even if you offered the highest price. OK, people like laissez-faire
are happy to take the risk. That is their business and perhaps their
funeral.
Laissez-faire
THAT... is a load of bullshit. An unconditional offer with no
deposit is most likely to be accepted if it's the highest.
> OK, people like laissez-faire
> are happy to take the risk. That is their business and perhaps
> their
> funeral.
You're a dick. I've never paid a deposit on the several
properties I have bought. My own homes and investment properties.
There has never been a need to.
And there certainly has been no financial 'risk' associated with
any of them that hinged on having not paid a deposit.
You really are quite bizarre. There are NO RULES when buying
property. You can make your own rules and agreement with the
vendor.
Understand yet?
With a standard RE agents purchase and sale agreement, I always
cross bits out and add bits that I want. No big deal.
You make it sound like I'm a criminal almost.
ofn01
"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:49e02dfc-c5ab-441a...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The key point I was making was for the benefit of the OP - If you have
> made an offer requiring a 10% deposit, you are playing with fire if
> you do not pay up the deposit within 3 days of being so requested.
>
> And to smart-alecs who think they can put in offers woth 0% deposit -
> the dream property you wish to buy may disappear in a puff of smoke
> even if you offered the highest price. OK, people like laissez-faire
> are happy to take the risk. That is their business and perhaps their
> funeral.
>
I think this makes sense - we were happy to pay a 10% deposit though were advised we could haggle down to 5%. The problem is in the areas we have been looking in there is still quite a bit of competition for properties despite the supposed downturn, so really we were more keen to ensure that the agreement had the deposit payable after it was unconditional and also included all our conditions in which were the complete set of the usual suspects (valuation, lim, builders report, finance, title check).
You're right that if you go with a 0% deposit you simply risk missing out, and after seeing the number of properties we saw to finally find something that suited, we were not willing to miss out just to hold onto the deposit for an extra 2-4 weeks between going unconditional & settling
peterwn
>
> Deposits are the least of my worry when I buy property. I put all
> sorts of creative things in contracts. But never have paid a
> deposit and am never likely to. Oh, sorry, I paid $5,000 on the
> 1st house I bought, but then read a few books about property
> investment. No more deposits after that. Just wastes my time and
> why should someone else have MY money when I don't own the
> property yet?
>
> I haven't bought a place yet where the vendor's don't have a
> pressing need to sell. You know what that means, right?
It is obvious that in the markets you buy in and in your set of
circumstances, you can get away with offering nil deposits and
butchering S&P agreements. Presumably it means nothing to you to walk
away from a deal where the vendor tells you where to stick it (or just
declines your offer).
If someone finds the 'dream home' that he/she and partner want badly
to buy in a tightly held area, they would be strongly advised not to
ry and duck paying a deposit or 'butchering' the agreement text. They
will be looking to put in a 'clean' offer that has maximum chance of
success. Given two similarly priced 'top' offers, the 'cleaner' one
will get preference.
Same goes if an investor is aggregating properties. An
'unclean' (with nil deposit specified) offer could cost you the deal,
leaving you to repent at leisure.
In India I think such a deposit is called 'ernest money' and for good
reason.
Laissez-faire
> On Apr 4, 4:34 pm, "Laissez-faire" <l...@leaveusalone.free>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Deposits are the least of my worry when I buy property. I put
>> all
>> sorts of creative things in contracts. But never have paid a
>> deposit and am never likely to. Oh, sorry, I paid $5,000 on
>> the
>> 1st house I bought, but then read a few books about property
>> investment. No more deposits after that. Just wastes my time
>> and
>> why should someone else have MY money when I don't own the
>> property yet?
>>
>> I haven't bought a place yet where the vendor's don't have a
>> pressing need to sell. You know what that means, right?
>
> It is obvious that in the markets you buy in and in your set of
> circumstances, you can get away with offering nil deposits and
> butchering S&P agreements.
There is no 'butchering' at all. It write terms that suit me and
the vendor. I'm not out to butcher or rip off anyone. Just make a
deal that benefits both me and the seller. I ALWAYS go for
win/win.
> Presumably it means nothing to you to walk
> away from a deal where the vendor tells you where to stick it
> (or just
> declines your offer).
Correct. But that has never happened.
> If someone finds the 'dream home' that he/she and partner want
> badly
> to buy in a tightly held area, they would be strongly advised
> not to
> ry and duck paying a deposit or 'butchering' the agreement
> text.
What's with this 'butchering' crap. You are unbelieveable.
> They
> will be looking to put in a 'clean' offer that has maximum
> chance of
> success. Given two similarly priced 'top' offers, the
> 'cleaner' one
> will get preference.
Rubbish. It depends entirely on the circumstances. Once you find
out why the vendor is *really* selling you can often come up with
something that is very beneficial to him AND yourself.
Liike I say... win/win.
There is no way in the wide world I would say no deposit to try
and get one over a vendor or to harm him in some way. It's not
they way I work.
The way I do work mostly requires no deposit.
> Same goes if an investor is aggregating properties. An
> 'unclean' (with nil deposit specified) offer could cost you the
> deal,
> leaving you to repent at leisure.
The drama. Sob bloody sob. You're mad.
> In India I think such a deposit is called 'ernest money' and
> for good
> reason.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think frankly. You thick as two
planks. You'd be the last person I'd ever seek advice from.