"Close Up" News Item TV1 19/5/08

[Davo36]

Yeah this sort of thing just makes me glad I'm not an agent any more. See this sort of stupid story all the time.

Glad to see most people here agree the agent did what they should have and deserved the commission.

The Bell woman expected the agent to try and bring the purchaser to the party because the agent would have to do it for free. Whereas as some have mentioned she'd have to spend some or all of her $16k booty paying a lawyer.

Contracts are contracts. They are only bits of paper and if the parties (1 or both) decide not to fulfull their part, there's bugger all that can be done a lot of the time. The deposit can be kept and the defaulting party pursued for damages but that whole process is very slow, costly and fraught with difficutly such as they have no money anyway or are firmly ensconced in China where everything is legal.

But of course it's an easy story for a Current Affairs Entertainment show to run. Poor honest homeowner has their money taken by rapacious real esate salesperson, blah blah blah.

David

[Ged1]

"There's nothing to see here."

Agreed......but, as a buyer, if I don't get possession then I will retrieve my deposit from my solicitor's trust account and the REA will get his commission from the vendor.

No one is saying the REA shouldn't get commission, but a buyer can be sure it won't be from him if he adds that clause.

[Green Fish]

Crikey!

"There's nothing to see here."

Of course the agent is entitled to the commission. The agent's job is to obtain an unconditional buyer. It that buyer defaults, the vendor has the usual remedies under the contract, and part of the vendor's claim will be for the commission that they had to pay to the agent.

The appearance of a grumpy old woman on TV does not alter the position - and there is no controversy over this: the agent is entitled to the commission, because the agent has found an unconditional buyer. "Nothing to see here."

The real issue is this: Why use agents? In my experience, they tend to foul things up.

[Ged1]

Put a clause in the contract stating the RE gets their commission on settlement.

It's easy for a buyer to put in a clause as above. The REA will have palpitations. They, however, have to present the offer, and any serious vendor will accept. Of course this means that the RE will help with this deal to the bitter end....probably help you in with the furniture and make you your first cup of tea in the new house..

[mortgage broker]

Lawyer

I wonder if this person ran the paperwork by the lawyer before signing.

[newkidontheblock]

Takes mental note (don't sell to NKOTB)

Awwww...

[Keys]

If I was in the Bells' shoes, I'd just default on my purchase.

Why go ahead with a purchase when you can't afford it? You'd have enough grounds to defend yourself in court - should your vendor decides to sue you.

Takes mental note (don't sell to NKOTB)

[newkidontheblock]

If I was in the Bells' shoes, I'd just default on my purchase.

Why go ahead with a purchase when you can't afford it? You'd have enough grounds to defend yourself in court - should your vendor decides to sue you.

[essence]

Yes, they were.

Was the property not unconditional when they went unconditional on their new purchase?

Hi Donna, that's the problem. Yes, they were unconditional, that's why they bought the second property, thinking they had a done deal.

Any complaint against the agent should come under the agency contract and other legislation.

Xris, I disagree (Oh, thank God, life is back to normal!!). The REA has done nothing wrong. She provided a conduit for a willing buyer and a willing seller. They agreed on the contract, the purchaser paid the deposit. The deposit money was banked into the RE Trust account (I'm assuming here) and then the commission was paid to the REA 10 days later. All legal.

I am afraid this is not true. There was nothing wrong with the S&P agreement. It even includes a remedy for the Bells - a line to take against the buyer.

This I agree with (Dang!!). The Bell's could've structured this better, in that, they should've put in that (should've been 10&#37 deposit would be released on SETTLEMENT, not on unconditional date. The only reason why agent's want deposits paid by unconditional date, is so they can get their commission earlier.

Why do you say she is trusting and naive? She looked pretty strong willed to me, stupid and unpleasant perhaps but not naive.

Being "strong-willed, stupid and unpleasant" doesn't preclude you from being trusting and naive. Those emotions that you saw, may have been created because the stress she is under.

Where the Bell's have focussed on, is that they have believed the REA's newspaper advertising "I can be trusted, blah blah blah". THAT'S BEING NAIVE.

[xris]

Was the property not unconditional when they went unconditional on their new purchase?

Cheers,

Donna

Yes, and this brings in the point about when sold. there is no real reason for not going unconditional on a new purchase until your own sale settles. Effectively your house has sold with an unconditional enforceable contract. It is the strength of that contract that is the issue here, not the fact that the sale had not settled. For this reason I totalling disagree that people should wait till their home settles before going unconditional elsewhere, (or for not paying the agent till this happens).

I wish people would stop whinging all the time. There is nothing wrong with the system as it stands, just in people's understanding of how to use it.

xris

[xris]

It was interesting to note, and I don't know if anybody else picked this up, but the purchaser was of Asian ethnicity (surname MAO). This person may or may not still be in NZ. What would be the point of the Bell's pursuing this person then?

I assumed/picked it up from the offer price used.

If the buyer is in Asia then the agent will need to be extra certain that she had advised the Bells of the potential risks in accepting the offer.

xris

[xris]

This woman is severely stressed. They may lose everything and still end up with a debt and could also be bankrupted in the process. This has all been caused by being trusting, naive and not structuring the S&P correctly.

Hello essence,

I am afraid this is not true. There was nothing wrong with the S&P agreement. It even includes a remedy for the Bells - a line to take against the buyer. Any complaint against the agent should come inder the agency contract and other legislation.

Why do you say she is trusting and naive? She looked pretty strong wiled to me, stupid and unpleasant perhaps but not naive.

xris

[donna]

Was the property not unconditional when they went unconditional on their new purchase?

Cheers,

Donna

[essence]

Mrs Bell

I can understand what she is saying and why. That doesn't mean it is right.

She's got two houses and a massive $1M mortgage that she doesn't want nor planned to have. Human reaction is to blame the person they perceive to be the instigator of their problems. Whether the perception is correct or not, doesn't matter.

This woman is severely stressed. They may lose everything and still end up with a debt and could also be bankrupted in the process. This has all been caused by being trusting, naive and not structuring the S&P correctly.

As with the recent case (Fleming?) where the purchaser didn't actively market their house and consequently ended up having to pay the vendor the difference between the original sell price and the vendor's "2nd" sell price, Mr & Mrs Bell CAN do this once their 1st property has sold.

As stated during the programme, they are paying $10K/month in mortgages and probably don't have the money to pay a lawyer to pursue the purchaser.

It was interesting to note, and I don't know if anybody else picked this up, but the purchaser was of Asian ethnicity (surname MAO). This person may or may not still be in NZ. What would be the point of the Bell's pursuing this person then?

[Heg]

I

What an unpleasant woman is Mrs Bell. Full of ill informed venom directed at the agent. This alone makes me pleased to see her in this predicament.

I agree. The article did not endear me to Mrs Bell and I thought that more should have been made of the fact that she was blaming the wrong person for the sale not proceeding. The agent has done nothing 'illegal'. Mrs Bell needs to take legal action against the buyers but seems very reluctant to pay her lawyer. She could sue the purchasers for all of her losses when they finally sell.
Can't say I have much sympathy for her predicament.