The seller chnaged his mind to sell the house

forex

Hi, 2 months ago I paid a deposite for the house.
I made a valuation report, structural survey.
Yesterday I received a call saying that the seller changed his mind to sell the house. What shall I do in this situation ?

1) I paid for for reports (Can I ask the seller to refund me this amount)
2) I lost Tax Relief for Mortgage (Can I expect he take this loses and refund me this amount ?)

Thank you for advice

Strawberry Fields

Do you have a note or memorandum signed and in writing by the vendor or his authorised agent containing the property, parties and price?

forex

godeas16 wrote: »

Do you have a note or memorandum signed and in writing by the vendor or his authorised agent containing the property, parties and price?

When I paid deposite, I received something like that (sorry, don't recall all details, I need to find where it is)

forex

godeas16 wrote: »

Do you have a note or memorandum signed and in writing by the vendor or his authorised agent containing the property, parties and price?

Found it ... This is a deposite receipt, it states property address, amount of the deposite, signed by the agent, but not property price. However I have the last property price (which is the agreed price) recorded in my phone as I made bets by sending SMS messages.

Thank you

Paulw

You have a deposit receipt. You will get your deposit back. That's it.

Strawberry Fields

forex wrote: »

Found it ... This is a deposite receipt, it states property address, amount of the deposite, signed by the agent, but not property price. However I have the last property price (which is the agreed price) recorded in my phone as I made bets by sending SMS messages.

Thank you

I don't know all the ins and outs on contracts for the sale of land but you need to show that to a solicitor and ask about specific performance.

Milk & Honey

It is more than likely that the deposit was paid subject to contract. Unless the vendor signed the contract there is no possibility of specific performance.

Strawberry Fields

Milk & Honey wrote: »

It is more than likely that the deposit was paid subject to contract. Unless the vendor signed the contract there is no possibility of specific performance.

That's gazumping then.

Milk & Honey

godeas16 wrote: »

That's gazumping then.

Maybe so. It is not illegal.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rGazumping.htm

Strawberry Fields

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Maybe so. It is not illegal.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rGazumping.htm

Yeah I know I read it earlier

MagicSean

Could estoppel be used here for reclaiming the likes of the surveys and all?

kkelliher

godeas16 wrote: »

That's gazumping then.

dont think it would fall under gazumping as not attempt to increase the price has been made based on the information stated.

If no contrct has been signed it is unlikly you would get anywhere however you never know. the costs would need to be worth while as you might spend more on legals tring to het it back

Milk & Honey

MagicSean wrote: »

Could estoppel be used here for reclaiming the likes of the surveys and all?

Estoppel is a shield and not a sword. It could not be used to attack the vendor.
The usual way around unsigned contracts is to sue for specific performance under the doctrine of part performance.

Reloc8

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Estoppel is a shield and not a sword. It could not be used to attack the vendor.
The usual way around unsigned contracts is to sue for specific performance under the doctrine of part performance.

never going to work on a standard form conveyance of residential property, presuming the usual terms are all that existed and the contracts wern't signed.

Milk & Honey

There was a case in Cork about 12 years ago decided by Judge Buckley in which specific performance was ordered. In that case the purchaser had had work done to a new house when the builder tried to pull out and at the same time charge the putative purchaser for the work done!

ResearchWill

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There was a case in Cork about 12 years ago decided by Judge Buckley in which specific performance was ordered. In that case the purchaser had had work done to a new house when the builder tried to pull out and at the same time charge the putative purchaser for the work done!

For once I think I can actually legally say that plaintiff was a wanker, well if it is the guy I think it was.

Milk & Honey

ResearchWill wrote: »

For once I think I can actually legally say that plaintiff was a wanker, well if it is the guy I think it was.

The defendant doesn't seem to have been an angel either.

Prendeville v. Gable Holdings Ltd.,
Here the plaintiffs had arranged mortgage finance and had the builder's foreman make some changes in the house. They engaged a firm of interior designers to advise on decoration of the new house, bought furniture and a fireplace and selected tiles and carpeting. They also engaged an estate agent for the sale of their existing house and advertised it for sale.


His Honour Judge Buckley found that all of these acts were acts of part performance. They were referable to an oral contract for the sale of the house, and it would be inequitable to permit the defendants to rely on the Statute. The Judge held that the defendants should have taken steps either to warn the plaintiffs not to commit themselves in relation to matters related to the new house or the sale of their old house until they had a binding agreement, or when they became aware of the steps that the plaintiffs were taking, such as putting their house on the market, to advise the plaintiffs that such steps were premature.
Probably wrong in law.
In a decision of the Circuit Court given prior to the Lakes decision, Prendeville v. Gable Holdings Ltd., Clarke Homes Ltd. and O'Sullivan (1998) 8 ILT 125–6 a different approach was adopted. Most of the judgment concentrates on the application of the doctrine of part performance, but that necessarily implies a finding that an agreement had been concluded. However, all of the documents surrounding the alleged agreement deny that any agreement existed. The receipt stated that the deposit paid was “subject to the terms of a formal contract yet to be agreed between vendor and purchaser.” Moreover, the receipt also referred to “a deposit in respect of a proposal to purchase the above property” and stated that the sale was conditional on contract and title. However Honour Judge Buckley, took this to mean that a conditional agreement had been reached, and granted an order of specific performance. While the defendant had made it clear at the time the booking deposit was accepted that the matter was subject to title and contract, His Honour Judge Buckley commented that the plaintiff was not experienced in the purchase of houses and did not appreciate that this was intended to mean that there was as yet no binding agreement. This case must now be regarded as overruled since the decision in Lakes.