Purchaser's Due diligence vs solicitor due diligence

[aucklandn81]

Hi Guys,

I am interested in buying a brand new property and I have already got purchaser's due diligence condition included.

My solicitor is recommending to add Solicitor due diligence. Wondering what would be the difference between solicitor's and my due diligence as I would still be dependent on solicitor reviewing the documents thoroughly?

As we are interested in property, we thought that it could be better with less conditions.

Just thought of posting if anyone had a similar experience before and it would be great if you can share your thoughts.

Thank you:-).

[spaceman]

IMHO your solicitor is being pedantic.....your due diligence can be whatever you want it to be....including getting to OK from your solicitor.

But it depends on how your clause is written of course.

Cheers
Spaceman

[aucklandn81]

IMHO your solicitor is being pedantic.....your due diligence can be whatever you want it to be....including getting to OK from your solicitor.

But it depends on how your clause is written of course.

Cheers
Spaceman

Thank you very much for your time and reply. Spaceman. Clause says that the agreement is conditional on the purchaser's satisfication upon completion of due diligence with the property on or before date. If the puchaser upon completion of due diligence investigation is dissatisfied with any aspect of the property, purchaser has right to cancel it.

[spaceman]

^ Righto ....so I'm not a lawyer....but i've bought and sold a few houses.

I can't see how you wouldn't be covered by your clause .....part of your DD should be getting the OK from your lawyer, so inserting a specific clause stating you need a lawyers DD seems redundant to me.

Good luck

Cheers
Spaceman

[aucklandn81]

^ Righto ....so I'm not a lawyer....but i've bought and sold a few houses.

I can't see how you wouldn't be covered by your clause .....part of your DD should be getting the OK from your lawyer, so inserting a specific clause stating you need a lawyers DD seems redundant to me.

Good luck

Cheers
Spaceman

Sure, Thank you very much. Spaceman

[Meehole]

I'm not sure where I heard it, but I recall that just saying subject to due diligence does not cut the mustard any more. There needs to be a very good reason why the purchase can't proceed. Ie if subject to finance then you need to show where you have applied for finance and been refused. If there is an issue with building work etc need to show proof.
We did put an offer in on a section north of Auckland in July and I am sure it was the agent we dealt with that mentioned that.

[aucklandn81]

I'm not sure where I heard it, but I recall that just saying subject to due diligence does not cut the mustard any more. There needs to be a very good reason why the purchase can't proceed. Ie if subject to finance then you need to show where you have applied for finance and been refused. If there is an issue with building work etc need to show proof.
We did put an offer in on a section north of Auckland in July and I am sure it was the agent we dealt with that mentioned that.

Oh, Ok. That's interesting and first time hearing myself. Thank you very much for sharing and I will keep in mind.

[Bob Kane]

I can't see how you wouldn't be covered by your clause .....part of your DD should be getting the OK from your lawyer, so inserting a specific clause stating you need a lawyers DD seems redundant to me.

Sounds like this clause is used so the vendor can't challenge you if the sale doesn't proceed.