do I have a contract???

[Bazzer]

I was presented with a contract offer on my property which went back and forth a few times with changes, all initialed by both parties except the last addition of chattels which slipped through unnoticed. The contract has been sitting with the lawyers for a month and deposit paid. There is a long closing and I am concerned that come settlement day some one will say the contract is not valid. Offer made but not accepted. The purchaser probably believes that the chattels are included but I have not agreed.

[revdev]

What does your lawyer say?

[Bazzer]

I was interested in getting a forum opinion, what do you think?

[speights boy]

Are the chattels which you missed a deal breaker for you ?
IE: If the purchaser insisted on them being included will you proceed with settlement or dispute ?

[Bazzer]

At the moment, I believe acceptance is an essential element of a valid contract. Untill acceptance is made does a valid contract exist.

[Momo]

I was interested in getting a forum opinion, what do you think?

I personally think there is an contract , at least both parties ( including lawyers) thought that is the case , the only dispute is whether the chattel are included as they are not initialed, you can dispute those chattels are not included and you have never agreed to it when it comes to settlement , however, if the buyer disputes that and goes to the extent to cancel the contract base on the fact the chattel part were never agreed therefore the contract is invalid, they might be able to do so.

I think you should ask your lawyer about your concern as he/she is the best person to answer it, get the issue sorted before the settlement date so you don't waste each others time.Good luck!

[Bazzer]

At the moment, I believe acceptance is an essential element of a valid contract. Untill acceptance is made does a valid contract exist.

The problem with this is that I believe that untill a valid contract exists then the person can withdraw the offer any time before acceptance, also is the transfer of property based on an invalid contract legal or can it be challenged after closure.

[Leftette]

I think it's a contract. You don't want to hang on to that dusty old orange and brown paisley-design fringed standard lampshade anyway, right?

[speights boy]

The problem with this is that I believe that untill a valid contract exists then the person can withdraw the offer any time before acceptance, also is the transfer of property based on an invalid contract legal or can it be challenged after closure.

I am assuming the chattels clause was put in by the purchaser ??
If you are happy with this clause, why not accept it now by signing as having accepted it.
IE: proceed with settlement.

If you are not happy and don't accept, then I would assume this will come as a surprise to the purchaser.
In that case, I would be wanting to sort this out now with my lawyer so there is no dispute come settlement.

[Damap]

Ask your lawyer. IF the facst are as you say then the buyer thinks they have a contract.

You didn't point out the fact you hadn't initialled or cross it out. (In my opinion) it's ridiculous to say the lawyers missed it you should be more up front.





NB: This post has been moderated.

[Leftette]

That's somewhat leaping to conclusions, damap. The OP said it was missed. It may have been missed by all, incl the lawyers, and only picked up by the OP some days/weeks later. I agree, they should ask for their lawyer's opinion, but it's an awfully long way from having no integrity and devious, ffs.

[Damap]

Not at all. They knew they hadn't initialled the chattels. So knowing they didn't initial they should have pointed it out to the agent or the buyers lawyer if no agent. That's what you or I would do. Not let it slip through.

[Leftette]

"all initialed by both parties except the last addition of chattels which slipped through unnoticed".

You're assuming. They know NOW that it is missing, but there was no indication given on the time between signing and noticing. Don't be an arse.

[Damap]

I don't think I am. I think you are being overly altruistic. IF what you say is true the BUYER added chattels in and the SELLER missed it. Suddenly the seller notices and instead of talking to their lawyer asks on a forum?
Buyer has paid deposit and only one with an issue is seller now.

Far more likely they deliberately didn't initial and then it went through. Now they are panicking because they may get to closing and buyer may be able to walk. Buyers may be paying too much or seller may have already bought again.

Whole thing is just too fishy. If they were legit they would have contacted attorney immediately and negotiated with buyer if necessary. I assume they haven't because they knew at the time. Now they are looking to shore up their position here in case buyer tries to walk.

[Leftette]

Where does it say the buyer added chattels?

You may be right with your analysis. Or possibly the buyer added chattels that the vendor doesn't want included, and it's the vendor who wants the option to bail? Would be interesting to hear from the OP again.