4 ms·

Parent is well within his rights. I would be pissed if I bought property that knowingly floods, but the seller's agent insists it is the responsibility of the

Parent is well within his rights. I would be pissed if I bought property that knowingly floods, but the seller's agent insists it is the responsibility of the buyer's agent to discover this. What if the buyer relied on the seller's agent? You believe the buyer is at fault?

deelowe 9y ago
I don't "think" it's the buyer's responsibility. It literally is their responsibility (excluding special circumstances). The large majority of contracts are written with the assumption that the buyer performs due diligence during a specific period. Once that period is up, there are penalties for backing out. The buyer is in violation of the contract if they back out of the offer. Rights have little to do with contract law in this case by the way. Note we're talking about public records such as flood plains here, not the seller lying on a disclosure form or some other form of fraud.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  If the penalties are part of the contract, then the buyer has a right, as does the seller, to execute the contract in that manner, as well. You act as though the buyer is committing a crime, where it is questionable that the seller or their agent may have.
  - deelowe 9y ago
    My point is that any experienced seller (and the lawyers and agents and banks...) is going to be confused and likely pissed if you show up to closing expecting to do all your research then. That's not what closing is for. Due diligence exists for a reason.
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      >> is going to be confused and likely pissed if you show up to closing expecting to do all your research then. To be clear, the seller in this case also happened to be the developer in charge of the quasi-government entity responsible for these documents. The county referred me to them because State law gives them responsibility for those documents. They had violated time frames in the contract multiple times before this, I only proceeded because I wanted the house at that location and wasn't willing to walk away despite their violations. I gave the title insurance company and the seller written notice of several weeks that I was still waiting on documents, and that if I didn't have them until we closed, I was going to make them sit there while I looked it all over. So I really don't care if they were confused or pissed, and I really don't care if you think so, either. I asked for them early in the process, didn't get them, so I was going to look them over and make a final decision when I got them - which was at closing, because they chose it to be at closing. I had money already on the table, and it was a calculated risk that I would eventually be okay with the documents, but I wasn't prepared to proceed with the rest of the mortgage without them. My point is that it was obvious to me that in most of the mortgages they handled and in most of the contracts this developer / builder (one of the biggest in my area) handles, most people were not looking at these things EVER.

deelowe 9y ago

I don't "think" it's the buyer's responsibility. It literally is their responsibility (excluding special circumstances). The large majority of contracts are written with the assumption that the buyer performs due diligence during a specific period. Once that period is up, there are penalties for backing out. The buyer is in violation of the contract if they back out of the offer. Rights have little to do with contract law in this case by the way. Note we're talking about public records such as flood plains here, not the seller lying on a disclosure form or some other form of fraud.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
amigoingtodie 9y ago
If the penalties are part of the contract, then the buyer has a right, as does the seller, to execute the contract in that manner, as well. You act as though the buyer is committing a crime, where it is questionable that the seller or their agent may have.
- deelowe 9y ago
  My point is that any experienced seller (and the lawyers and agents and banks...) is going to be confused and likely pissed if you show up to closing expecting to do all your research then. That's not what closing is for. Due diligence exists for a reason.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    >> is going to be confused and likely pissed if you show up to closing expecting to do all your research then. To be clear, the seller in this case also happened to be the developer in charge of the quasi-government entity responsible for these documents. The county referred me to them because State law gives them responsibility for those documents. They had violated time frames in the contract multiple times before this, I only proceeded because I wanted the house at that location and wasn't willing to walk away despite their violations. I gave the title insurance company and the seller written notice of several weeks that I was still waiting on documents, and that if I didn't have them until we closed, I was going to make them sit there while I looked it all over. So I really don't care if they were confused or pissed, and I really don't care if you think so, either. I asked for them early in the process, didn't get them, so I was going to look them over and make a final decision when I got them - which was at closing, because they chose it to be at closing. I had money already on the table, and it was a calculated risk that I would eventually be okay with the documents, but I wasn't prepared to proceed with the rest of the mortgage without them. My point is that it was obvious to me that in most of the mortgages they handled and in most of the contracts this developer / builder (one of the biggest in my area) handles, most people were not looking at these things EVER.