I know there has been lots of chat about gazumping (is that how you spell it?) on the site, but I just wanted to rant...:rant:

We ended bidding on our house last week, we made sure that all bidding was open and that everyone knew what all the offers were and then we selected who we were going to sell the house to.

So imagine my horror last night when one of the bidders who didn't get it came knocking on my door offering an extra £5000 to sell the house to her.

I am so angry, of course we sent her packing, but I feel as though I have just paid £5000 I can ill afford to keep my morals intact. I rang the agents this morning to say that if anyone else came in we just didn't want to know.

I know people get desperate and when its closed bidding I can kind of understand, but when bidding is open and all offers are disclosed, putting buyers in such a difficult position is just so unfair.

I feel pious but stupid and I'm really angry that she has made me feel this way. Well anyway end of rant.:rant:

Would you go back on your word when you know your buyer has already paid their survey and search fees?

Until that contract is exchanged, the deal isn't done.

yes i would, if i was happy that the person offering more wasn't likely to pull out later on for some reason.
a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

Originally posted by Tony
Until that contract is exchanged, the deal isn't done.
Legally, you are correct. But morally it's a disgusting thing to do - just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean you should.

I would not get involved in gazumping (with the exception of being gazumped, which I'd have no say in whatsoever), no matter what. My word is my bond - if I agree to sell to someone, I won't back out just because someone else came along and offered 25% more. If I thought I could get 25% more, I'd keep the bidding open longer.

And I won't get involved in sealed bidding either - if I make an offer I tell the agents AND the vendors that it is an offer, not a bid - they can take it or leave it. And I get very uppity with agents when, having done the above, I get a call off them telling me they've gone to Best and Finals.

how strong are your morals then Rich? What if it wasn't an additional 5k they offered, but 50k (they really want the house).

And purchasers back out more often than vendors! It appears there aren't too many qualms about that.

Originally posted by Sara
So imagine my horror last night when one of the bidders who didn't get it came knocking on my door offering an extra £5000 to sell the house to her.

I am so angry, of course we sent her packing, but I feel as though I have just paid £5000 I can ill afford to keep my morals intact. I rang the agents this morning to say that if anyone else came in we just didn't want to know.


And if the person you think is going to buy decides they don't want to (which they can at any time) you end-up with no buyer and you've lost £5K, whereas the gazumper was probably much more likely to actually buy.

You were complaining in the other thread that you can't afford a bigger house but here you are turning down extra money.

Originally posted by Sara
I know there has been lots of chat about gazumping (is that how you spell it?) on the site, but I just wanted to rant...:rant:

We ended bidding on our house last week, we made sure that all bidding was open and that everyone knew what all the offers were and then we selected who we were going to sell the house to.

So imagine my horror last night when one of the bidders who didn't get it came knocking on my door offering an extra £5000 to sell the house to her.

I am so angry, of course we sent her packing, but I feel as though I have just paid £5000 I can ill afford to keep my morals intact. I rang the agents this morning to say that if anyone else came in we just didn't want to know.

I know people get desperate and when its closed bidding I can kind of understand, but when bidding is open and all offers are disclosed, putting buyers in such a difficult position is just so unfair.

I feel pious but stupid and I'm really angry that she has made me feel this way. Well anyway end of rant.:rant:

Would you go back on your word when you know your buyer has already paid their survey and search fees?

Isn't guzzumping illegal - but there again South Yorkshire has the odd "ebay" way of buying houses, as does parts of the west I believe.

Alex - :)

no, why would it be illegal, no contract has been exchanged, either party can pull out at any point.

Originally posted by amhudson119
Isn't guzzumping illegal - but there again South Yorkshire has the odd "ebay" way of buying houses, as does parts of the west I believe.

Alex - :)

Not realy, on Ebay the person with the highest bid wins, and has to buy, it the rules. No-one can contact the seller and offer more.

In house buying the person with the highest bid wins, but then can change their mind and decide they don't want the house after all, no-one makes them buy it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
how strong are your morals then Rich? What if it wasn't an additional 5k they offered, but 50k (they really want the house).
You can ask such theoretical questions, but in all honesty the likelihood of someone offering me an extra 50K is virtually zero. If however it did happen, then you're right - my morals would be put to the test. I can't tell you I definitely wouldn't take it, but you equally can't tell me I would.

It's like asking me if I'd cheat on my girlfriend - even if Kirsten Dunst offered me a night of no-strings-attached passion, I wouldn't. But if Kirsten Dunst, Allison Mack and Amy Smart offered me a four-in-a-bed encounter, I'd find it so hard to resist. But I hope I still would, because it's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend.

Originally posted by RichD
You can ask such theoretical questions, but in all honesty the likelihood of someone offering me an extra 50K is virtually zero. If however it did happen, then you're right - my morals would be put to the test. I can't tell you I definitely wouldn't take it, but you equally can't tell me I would.

It's like asking me if I'd cheat on my girlfriend - even if Kirsten Dunst offered me a night of no-strings-attached passion, I wouldn't. But if Kirsten Dunst, Allison Mack and Amy Smart offered me a four-in-a-bed encounter, I'd find it so hard to resist. But I hope I still would, because it's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend.

I don't see it as like that at all.

A closer analogy might be, if you'd advertised yourself as a male prostitue, accepted an offer from Kirsten Dunst (she's actually going to pay you) but then before the transaction is under way, you get a better offer from Aliison Mack and Amy Smart.

So you phone up Kirsten, appologise for being double booked and go with the latter two (they are going to pay more).

it's a business transaction, you're selling something. Until you've made the step that legally binds you to that sale I don't see any moral ambiguity in taking a better offer if one comes along.

The example of 50k is just taking the argument to it's extremes anyway, not an analogy, like you say, cheating on your girlfriend is wrong no matter how many celebrities are going to sleep with you. Selling your house to the highest bidder isn't wrong, it's common sense.
Look at it the other way, do you think the buyer will feel bad about pulling out if they happen to see a different house that they prefer the look off? I doubt it, all you'd hear is that they've decided not to go ahead.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Look at it the other way, do you think the buyer will feel bad about pulling out if they happen to see a different house that they prefer the look off? I doubt it, all you'd hear is that they've decided not to go ahead.
Well if I had to pull out of a purchase for some reason after having had my offer accepted, I would feel very bad about it. If they wouldn't, well I guess that's just the difference between them and me...

Originally posted by RichD
You can ask such theoretical questions, but in all honesty the likelihood of someone offering me an extra 50K is virtually zero. If however it did happen, then you're right - my morals would be put to the test. I can't tell you I definitely wouldn't take it, but you equally can't tell me I would.

It's like asking me if I'd cheat on my girlfriend - even if Kirsten Dunst offered me a night of no-strings-attached passion, I wouldn't. But if Kirsten Dunst, Allison Mack and Amy Smart offered me a four-in-a-bed encounter, I'd find it so hard to resist. But I hope I still would, because it's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend.

Well said, I believe gazumping IS imorral and my word is as good as my bond, remind me never to do business with you Cyclone and Nick. The reason I am so angry is that I feel that my morals WERE put to the test and whilst I didn't hesitate to say no, I spent the next couple of hours wondering if I had done the right thing as I know so many of you others would not have hesitated to be self serving - Cyclone, whats your strapline again? You hypocrit

No Nick I was not wanting a bigger house, I have got the house I want and it is slightly smaller than the one I've sold but has a much bigger garden, and yet still cost half as much again, and yes, despite the fact that my husband and i are currently discussing increasing our mortgage by about £5K to do some essential upgrading work I still turned down the extra £5K and that's because I believe that an agreement, even if verbal, is still an agreement and I know how desperately upset I would be if I was gazumped. You can't have one rule for others and another for yourself - although apparently you can!

As my buyer lost out on the bidding on a house round the corner and still went 10K over my asking price I really don't think there is any less chance that he is very keen to complete. And anyway, who would trust in business someone who was so underhand in their dealings as to try to gazump, they are clearly depraved? I could have accepted her higher offer to have her drop out after a couple of weeks because she found something better...

Although you're right, God help my buyer if he messes me about...

Originally posted by Tony
Until that contract is exchanged, the deal isn't done.

I'm and Estate Agent here in Florida. The contract is signed upon acceptance of an offer. Both sides agree - one to sell and the other party to buy. Once signed no other offer can be accepted and both sides are locked into the deal. Back ups can only be in place in the event the first falls through. Legally the seller cannot accept another offer no matter how good it is. If they default on the contract they will be sued and be forced to sell to the first buyer. I have an English couple buying a condo here and was asked if this was binding. I assured them that it was. They said that in the UK the contract is signed at closing. Here the surveys are done and inspections paid for only when a guarantee form both sides is received. No gazzumping occurs. The person defaulting loses their deposit. If I bought a house in England I would get a legal document signed by the seller. Does anybody do this or do they just cross their fingers and hope for the best? A verbal acceptance is basically meaningless. My mum and dad own a house in Sheffield and eventually it will be mine. Should I go for more money?

We just cross our fingers, silly isn't it?

Originally posted by Funke88
Here the surveys are done and inspections paid for only when a guarantee form both sides is received. No gazzumping occurs. The person defaulting loses their deposit.
Can I ask what the situation would be like if the surveys and inspections showed up something major that made the buyer change their mind? Is it written into the contract that a buyer can back out if X, Y and Z conditions are not met, or assumptions A, B and C are disproven? Or perhaps a clause that certain 'defects' will result in a mandatory lowering of the sale price?

Oh, and what if it's the seller who backs out? Do they reimburse the buyer the same amount again as compensation?

i'm sorry you feel that way.
I think the difference is that I don't think it's immoral, and thus it isn't inconsistent with my signature.
I generally assume the worst when making any sort of business arrangement, that way you can only be pleasantly surprised.
I certainly don't have one rule for me and another for others, I wouldn't expect a vendor to turn down a better offer because of a verbal arrangement, although i might consider suggesting (next time i buy a house) that in the event of the house being withdrawn after i've spent money (ie surveys etc...) that the vendor pays for it. A contract could be signed to that effect before going any further with the sale.

An interesting system in America, but still not completely fair.
What if your surveyor determines that the house is about to collapse, you loose your deposit for pulling out as the purchaser. Unless the contract specifies conditions under which both sides can withdraw without loosing money or being sued, which might work, although would probably end up in court (as most things seem to in the US).

Originally posted by Sara
Well said, I believe gazumping IS imorral and my word is as good as my bond, remind me never to do business with you Cyclone and Nick. The reason I am so angry is that I feel that my morals WERE put to the test and whilst I didn't hesitate to say no, I spent the next couple of hours wondering if I had done the right thing as I know so many of you others would not have hesitated to be self serving - Cyclone, whats your strapline again? You hypocrit

No Nick I was not wanting a bigger house, I have got the house I want and it is slightly smaller than the one I've sold but has a much bigger garden, and yet still cost half as much again, and yes, despite the fact that my husband and i are currently discussing increasing our mortgage by about £5K to do some essential upgrading work I still turned down the extra £5K and that's because I believe that an agreement, even if verbal, is still an agreement and I know how desperately upset I would be if I was gazumped. You can't have one rule for others and another for yourself - although apparently you can!

As my buyer lost out on the bidding on a house round the corner and still went 10K over my asking price I really don't think there is any less chance that he is very keen to complete. And anyway, who would trust in business someone who was so underhand in their dealings as to try to gazump, they are clearly depraved? I could have accepted her higher offer to have her drop out after a couple of weeks because she found something better...

Although you're right, God help my buyer if he messes me about...

Its a wider picture than just business transactions going wrong. Its a matter of principal, if my word is worth nothing, then what am I?

Originally posted by Sara
Its a wider picture than just business transactions going wrong. Its a matter of principal, if my word is worth nothing, then what am I?

Were you not on here discussing the profit made on your house the other day?

If selling, I would sell to the first person willing to put the deposit in the solicitors account.

Originally posted by Sara
Although you're right, God help my buyer if he messes me about...

TBH if I was selling my house and someone agreed to buy it then they found a better house I would rather they went for the better house, granted it might p*SS me off but they got a better deal.
What do I expect them to do ? buy my house even though they have found a better one just becasue they said they would ?

Originally posted by RichD
Can I ask what the situation would be like if the surveys and inspections showed up something major that made the buyer change their mind? Is it written into the contract that a buyer can back out if X, Y and Z conditions are not met, or assumptions A, B and C are disproven? Or perhaps a clause that certain 'defects' will result in a mandatory lowering of the sale price?

Oh, and what if it's the seller who backs out? Do they reimburse the buyer the same amount again as compensation?

I wrote a contract recently with a clause "contingent upon a satisfactory home inspection" Home inspections must be done within 10 days so that if something is discovered then it must be fixed or the contract is null and void. They check plumbing, electrical outlets, insulation of the roof, appliances and gas pipes. Plus they check for termites and wood rot. The buyer has the right to inspect and cancel to get their deposit back. The seller can then lower the price to allow for repairs. It's better to pay a hundred dollars for an inspection than to wait until after you've moved in and discover problems that will cost thousands. Some people want a "fixer upper" and are fully aware that a house needs major repairs. The contract is then written up "as is" and the buyer gets the house basically with no guarantees. If the seller disagrees with a home inspection they have the right to hire their own inspector. Then after that it goes to arbitration and the courts send in an inspector to make a decision. Either side can lose the deposit, which is usually 10% of the price. Big chunk of change for a million dollar home.

Originally posted by nick2
TBH if I was selling my house and someone agreed to buy it then they found a better house I would rather they went for the better house, granted it might p*SS me off but they got a better deal.
What do I expect them to do ? buy my house even though they have found a better one just becasue they said they would ?
Yes. Because they said they would. Hardly anybody seems to know the value of a promise these days. It's very sad...

Originally posted by RichD
Yes. Because they said they would. Hardly anybody seems to know the value of a promise these days. It's very sad...

just so long as nobody is working under the false premise that a verbal agreement is binding, and that everyone knows the value of a signature, then I don't see why that's a problem.

If I ever have to sell this house, maybe I should say to the purchaser that I accept their offer, subject to contract.
No one is confused then, they know that they can still pull out, I know that I can still pull out.
I don't see why something that isn't legally binding should be considered so, when there is a legally binding step coming up anyway.

To take it further, you might decide in your head that like with an auction any offer that someone makes is binding, in which case you'll be morally outraged if someone makes and subsequently withdraws an offer before the bidding is even closed. Where does it stop?

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't see why something that isn't legally binding should be considered so, when there is a legally binding step coming up anyway.
The reason it should be considered binding is because then the buyer shells out money to have surveys done, and that money is WASTED if the seller pulls out. The seller has directly caused the buyer to lose money. The money is gone, and it can't be easily replenished. It's tantamount to theft, the only difference being that the seller hasn't taken the money themself.

And because its people's lives and hopes and dreams that you are dickering around with.

Oh, and one man and his BMW - the depths of you simplicity, lack of cognitive analysis skils, obvious inability to think at more than a surface level never ceases to amaze me. Why do you think that making a profit necessitates being dishonest and breaking your word. Just because I am happy that my capital has grown and that I have made money from my property doesn't mean that I have thrown all of my principals and ideals to the wind to do so. I consider myself an honest and fair person and I can only do that if my actions are a reflection of this. If i acted in any other way than I would be the sort of person I don't like!

Originally posted by RichD
Yes. Because they said they would. Hardly anybody seems to know the value of a promise these days. It's very sad...

So you would do that, buy a house that wasn't the best one just becasuse you said you would ?

"Sorry kids, I know this house isn't as nice as the other one, and garden is smaller, and it's further from the school, but I made a promise, so we're living here whether we like it or not."

Originally posted by nick2
So you would do that, buy a house that wasn't the best one just becasuse you said you would ?

"Sorry kids, I know this house isn't as nice as the other one, and garden is smaller, and it's further from the school, but I made a promise, so we're living here whether we like it or not."
That's just silly. I wouldn't agree to buy a house if I might not want to live in it. If I had two offers in (which would be unlikely) and one was accepted, and the other house was a better one and expected to be decided on in the next day or so, I'd be honest about it with the the seller who was accepting my offer, not committing to the purchase until I was sure. If I lost out because of that, tough - it's a calculated risk. I accept that.

It's a matter of doing what you think you should, not what you think you can get away with.

rather than it being two houses on the go at once, isn't it more likely that you'd have settled for house A, made the bid, started the surveys and all the other stuff. And then you happen to see house B, and it's nicer and suits you better, maybe it's even cheaper as well, or in a better area, or whatever it is that attracts you to a house.

Do you continue with purchasing house A, you're not legally obliged too, you haven't made a legal commitment to do so, indeed if the survey turned up something you didn't like, or if you lost your job, or any other number of myriad factors changed you would still pull out, so why not that a better house has become available?

I do agree that the loss of the survey costs is unfair if you are gazumped. There was a plan to make a change to the way houses are sold in the UK (not heard anything about it recently) so that the vendor has a survey done (by an independant survey company). This survey is then made available to all the bidders. Which would neatly solve that problem.

Originally posted by RichD
That's just silly. I wouldn't agree to buy a house if I might not want to live in it. If I had two offers in (which would be unlikely) and one was accepted, and the other house was a better one and expected to be decided on in the next day or so, I'd be honest about it with the the seller who was accepting my offer, not committing to the purchase until I was sure. If I lost out because of that, tough - it's a calculated risk. I accept that.

It's a matter of doing what you think you should, not what you think you can get away with.

That wasn't my moral dillema.

The dilema is :

You see a house, it's almost perfect, and you agree to buy it, then the next day you see a better house, which is perfect, do you still go ahead and buy the first one ?

Agreed, such a change would improve matters and make gazumping less distasteful (to me).

For me, the 'better house comes along' scenario would not occur - if an offer was accepted I would cease to look at others. That way if a better house became available I wouldn't know about it, and therefore wouldn't care.

Legally, the sale isn't final until exchange, but morally, the sale is agreed and I have 'bought' the house - just haven't got to the transaction yet.

Originally posted by RichD
Agreed, such a change would improve matters and make gazumping less distasteful (to me).

For me, the 'better house comes along' scenario would not occur - if an offer was accepted I would cease to look at others. That way if a better house became available I wouldn't know about it, and therefore wouldn't care.

Legally, the sale isn't final until exchange, but morally, the sale is agreed and I have 'bought' the house - just haven't got to the transaction yet.

:clap: Ditto :clap:

I think every seller accepts that a purchaser agrees to buy their house subject to satisfactory surveys/searches and would not condemn a buyer for pulling out if these came back with problems. I would also have empathy with any buyer who needed to pull out due to an unfortunate change of pertsonal circumstances, such as becoming unemployed. But to p[ull out because you've seen something better, that's just wrong. If you were still looking for semthing better you shouldn't have made an offer. We turned down loads of buyers to go with the one we chose. I would be really angry if he pulled out because he hadn't really been serious in the first place.

You have got me all really worried about our sale now, as it scares me to realise how many of you are unempathetic cutthroats that I would cross the street to avoid and certainly would never chose to knowingly do business with.


I quite often sub contract work bundles to Java programmers, I certainly hope I don't come across you in a business context Cyclone.

What ever happened to individuals having empathy, a social conscience and contributing to a pleuristic society.

Originally posted by Sara
You have got me all really worried about our sale now, as it scares me to realise how many of you are unempathetic cutthroats that I would cross the street to avoid and certainly would never chose to knowingly do business with.

I quite often sub contract work bundles to Java programmers, I certainly hope I don't come across you in a business context Cyclone.

What ever happened to individuals having empathy, a social conscience and contributing to a pleuristic society.

When you do decide to move house again will you be looking for an ivory tower on the moral highground ?

Originally posted by Sara
And because its people's lives and hopes and dreams that you are dickering around with.

Oh, and one man and his BMW - the depths of you simplicity, lack of cognitive analysis skils, obvious inability to think at more than a surface level never ceases to amaze me. Why do you think that making a profit necessitates being dishonest and breaking your word. Just because I am happy that my capital has grown and that I have made money from my property doesn't mean that I have thrown all of my principals and ideals to the wind to do so. I consider myself an honest and fair person and I can only do that if my actions are a reflection of this. If i acted in any other way than I would be the sort of person I don't like!

I think you are full of s**t basically. I hope that isn't too simplistic for you. If you were happy at a certain profit level, you should have stuck it on at a fixed price and the first to put the money on the table took it. The very fact you let it get bid over and above the a price you marketed it at, shows that you along with all others who would have done the same are in to to make the most amount of money. Theres nothing wrong in that, but don't take the moral high ground just because you turned down an offer of £5000 above the final price you agreed on.
You let if go over and above the asking, what do you expect people to do if not offer more money when its necessary to do so? Look at how you marketed the property, look at the bidding methods and then think about what you have written again.

Incase you can't figure it out, the very method of sale you have used encourgages bidding over and over the previous bidder. That would indicate that what this lady did was not incorrect, so you shouldn't get such a hump about it.

If you are talking profit (which you have done previously), clearly your business sense isn't very good. Rather then giving her the shove, you should have let her know she could come back if the sale fell through, or if the selected buyer decides on another house.

well if you have already seen a house had your offer accepted why are you still looking !!!!!!!!

Originally posted by greensheff
well if you have already seen a house had your offer accepted why are you still looking !!!!!!!!

I think perhaps in case the survey comes back with a number of faults, or indeed if the seller pulls out. The length of a chain can also make people think again, especially FTB's.

any good agent would keep details of interested parties to fall back on if it should come back on the market
as well go back to all who made offers

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
I think perhaps in case the survey comes back with a number of faults, or indeed if the seller pulls out. The length of a chain can also make people think again, especially FTB's.

But you couldn't sell to first time buyers - you will only sell to the first person to place a deposit with your solicitor and first time buyers rarely have a deposit in the current economic climate. Oh, and you can't sell to people moving up as they won't have a deposit until their house is sold. Oh no, just who are you going to sell to. I can see that you are an ace at this property market thing. Oooh, no my mkistake, I mean arse.

Hmm, not really thinking this through are you..

And...
"The very fact you let it get bid over and above the a price you marketed it at, shows that you along with all others who would have done the same are in to to make the most amount of money. Theres nothing wrong in that, but don't take the moral high ground just because you turned down an offer of £5000 above the final price you agreed on. "
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

Originally posted by Sara
But you couldn't sell to first time buyers - you will only sell to the first person to place a deposit with your solicitor and first time buyers rarely have a deposit in the current economic climate. Oh, and you can't sell to people moving up as they won't have a deposit until their house is sold. Oh no, just who are you going to sell to. I can see that you are an ace at this property market thing. Oooh, no my mkistake, I mean arse.

Hmm, not really thinking this through are you..

And...
"The very fact you let it get bid over and above the a price you marketed it at, shows that you along with all others who would have done the same are in to to make the most amount of money. Theres nothing wrong in that, but don't take the moral high ground just because you turned down an offer of £5000 above the final price you agreed on. "
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

So what you are saying is a FTB wouldn't even have a 5% deposit? You are living on the same planet as the rest of us aren't you? Do you realise how much 100% mortgages cost, and those that are priced reasonably well, you need a triple A credit rating to get.

As far as deposit is concerned, what are you classing as a deposit? Are you talking about a large percentage of the property value? Im talking about a deposit based on covering my costs if they pull out. If you have half a braincell in that looted aladdins cave you call a head, you would know the formal deposit is not normally placed until exchange of contract. I would see anybody who is willing to just put down my costs from the offset as being a very willing buyer.

Anyway you even make mistakes in spelling 'mistake'..... :D

There is no contradiction in terms. If you were happy at a level of 'profit', then you could have put it on a fixed price sale. But no, you did what most do and allowed all people who viewed your property to enter into a bidding scenario thus increasing the 'profit'.

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with that if thats the way you want to do business, but don't think you are morally superior to anybody else because you turned down somebody offering £5k more then the interested party you chose. You invited people into a bidding scenario, and what she did was place a bid, albeit late. I really can't see why you took a hump to that? Maybe you can appreciate somebodys frustration at not winning the bid, and in desperation making the £5k+ bid? No.... that would clearly be too sensible of you.

Before turning her away from your door, maybe you should have enquired how she intended to fund the property purchase. You might find, that if your chosen buyer is going down the mortgage route, and the valuer finds its not worth the price big, or the deposit is not large enough to offset the banks liability, the sale will fall through.

From you post you mention economic climate. If you knew anything about the economic climate in the property sector at the moment, you would also know good genuine buyers are not that easy to come by. You might have just turned away your insurance policy on selling the house.

Can I just add...

If there IS an contradiction in terms here I will explain to to you.

You were happy at a certain 'profit' level... then you could have sold at a fixed price.

You chose a bidding method of sale....in this case this lead to the price increasing and increasing the profit, which is fair enough.

How can you feel upset by somebody coming and offering you £5k extra? Whether you choose to accept it or not is a separate issue - but you are talking about it as though its not what the bidding scenario encouraged anyway. Anybody would have though she came and pi55ed on cornflakes.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
[B...Anybody would have though she came and pi55ed on cornflakes. [/B]

She did, she effectively made me pay £5000 to be able to stand by my principals, wouldn't that pee you off. Oh no of course not, you have no principals, if you disagree please feel free to enlighten us as to what they might be

Originally posted by Sara
She did, she effectively made me pay £5000 to be able to stand by my principals, wouldn't that pee you off. Oh no of course not, you have no principals, if you disagree please feel free to enlighten us as to what they might be

Nope, she didn't make you do anything. You allowed (note ALLOWED) people to go into a bidding war to buy the property. This being the mentality of the seller (ie. much money as possible), do you blame her for trying?

Any half reasonable person can see what I am saying. The size of what she was offering is irrelevant, the fact she came to you door to offer it is irrelevant, the fact you turned it down isn't relevant.

If your morals were so strong, you could have put it as a fixed price and let the first genuine buyer at their price take it. No, you went for the more money option to start with, so you hardly discouraged this kind of thing did you? :loopy:

I can't see how she effectively came and pi55ed on your cornflakes by being party to something your encouraged from the offset.

And now that we are talking principles, in the housing transactions I have been involved in I have set a fixed price, and the first GENUINE buyer takes. Less headache for them, less messing around for me. Simple.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Nope, she didn't make you do anything. You allowed (note ALLOWED) people to go into a bidding war to buy the property. This being the mentality of the seller (ie. much money as possible), do you blame her for trying?

Any half reasonable person can see what I am saying. The size of what she was offering is irrelevant, the fact she came to you door to offer it is irrelevant, the fact you turned it down isn't relevant.

If your morals were so strong, you could have put it as a fixed price and let the first genuine buyer at their price take it. No, you went for the more money option to start with, so you hardly discouraged this kind of thing did you? :loopy:

I can't see how she effectively came and pi55ed on your cornflakes by being party to something your encouraged from the offset.

And now that we are talking principles, in the housing transactions I have been involved in I have set a fixed price, and the first GENUINE buyer takes. Less headache for them, less messing around for me. Simple.

You ASSume to much.. we did not start a bidding war and we did not take the highest bid so :P .
Perhaps your ASSumption was partly my fault as I used the word "bid" not offer. We operated fairly within p[revailing market conditions

We put our house on the market at a reasonable price, informed all viewers that we would stop viewing at 12:00 exactly 14 days after the house came on the market and informed them that any offer must be made by that date and that time. We also informed them that we would not neccesarily accept the highest offer as the position of the buyer was also important to us. We informed our agent to make all viewers aware of any offers received if they asked and stated that if two people offered the same amount and were in the same position then we would let our neighbours choose based on who they would most like to live next door to. YTou can't say fairer than that.

At 12:15 on the final day our agent informed us of who had offered what. We did not chose the highest offer, we did not choose the second highest offer. There were two third highest offers, out neighbours chose.

So tell me, does this sound like the actions of someone out to get as much money as they can? Please don't judge everyone by your own shoddy standards of decency.

Originally posted by Sara
You ASSume to much.. we did not start a bidding war and we did not take the highest bid so :P .
Perhaps your ASSumption was partly my fault as I used the word "bid" not offer. We operated fairly within p[revailing market conditions

We put our house on the market at a reasonable price, informed all viewers that we would stop viewing at 12:00 exactly 14 days after the house came on the market and informed them that any offer must be made by that date and that time. We also informed them that we would not neccesarily accept the highest offer as the position of the buyer was also important to us. We informed our agent to make all viewers aware of any offers received if they asked and stated that if two people offered the same amount and were in the same position then we would let our neighbours choose based on who they would most like to live next door to. YTou can't say fairer than that.

At 12:15 on the final day our agent informed us of who had offered what. We did not chose the highest offer, we did not choose the second highest offer. There were two third highest offers, out neighbours chose.

So tell me, does this sound like the actions of someone out to get as much money as they can? Please don't judge everyone by your own shoddy standards of decency.

Two words....

High Horse

Two more....

Get Off

You still don't get it do you? Not that I am suprised. Clearly you lack the intellect and ability to think beyond the tip of your upturned nose.

The fact she offered £5k more means nothing. Even if she offered £1 more, it still means nothing. You are just trying to add weight to an argument which you lost a few posts back.

You put it up on a bid based sale. Now, you can call if offers, martians, pillowcases or whatever else you want... its still one bidding beyond the other. Thats all she did... can you get that into your thick head? That does not challenge your morals in any way, shape or form. If you feel it did, then you should perhaps question the strength of your morals. You were already saying your decision cost you £5000!! Spending money that isn't yours, talking profit... you are right any idiot can make money from property, but having done so, some people still remain idiots. Congratulations.

Fixed price = no moral problems. Get the idea now?

Last year we accepted an offer on our house, near asking price (in Rotherham they don't go over) - decided to go with an elderly couple who'd already lost a property and were temporarily renting. The woman said she was very worried that we'd back out, and we tried to reassure her we wouldn't. We found a property in Sheffield - we needed a buyer before we could compete here as the market was very buoyant. Paid our survey fees etc, and geared up for everything to start happening. The old couple only changed their minds - no change to their circs, no house to sell and the survey on ours was fine - just wanted to be 'nearer the shops'! I couldn't understand why they made a strong offer in the first place, and no, they didn't offer to reimburse us for our costs. We lost out on the house we wanted as we had to put ours back on the market. We actually got a little bit more for ours in the end, and found a house we liked better than the first one - so it turned out well - we love the house we've bought.
Its not all about money, we had a slightly higher offer the first time, but went for the people with no chain. I was very angry when they backed out because of the upset they caused us - but unfortunately some people have no thought for others. Once our offer was accepted on the house we wanted we stopped looking - doesn't everyone!

Mod:

Please keep this thread civil. House selling raises high stress levels, but let's try to be a little nicer to each other. :thumbsup:

Being empathetic in business is an advantage. But being soft and doing everything to the advantage of the customer is not. Both sides in a business transaction are after the best deal they can get, a good negotiation will leave you somewhere in the middle with both sides profiting.

I'm not in the contract market at the moment, but if I were I certainly wouldn't be 'cut throat' with clients, as there is always the potential for repeat work, and forming a good working relationship is part of the negotiation process. Unless you think it's likely that you'll sell another house to the same people the same cannot be said of house buying.
If (sticking with java contracting) I were too empathetic, i'd be some sort of java superhero, offering out my skills for free to the weak and needy (maybe wearing a cape, and my underpants on the outside of my trousers). Of course that's silly (not the cape, doing it for free), because I want to make a living out of it. So what I do is negotiate the very best hourly rate I can for each contract. I then work hard and do a good job, both sides happy in the end. I could make the other side happier by forgoing my pay, or not billing for every hour I work, very empathic I'm sure as it would make them happy, but not i hope you'll agree a sensible or expected thing for me to do.

Where was I going with that, the cape distracted me... Oh right, I remember. Don't assume that people will work for free, and don't assume that people are going to consider your feelings when buying or selling a house. As a vendor or purchaser I'm concerned about my feelings and my wallet, your feelings and wallet are your concern to look after.

Originally posted by Sara
:clap: Ditto :clap:

I think every seller accepts that a purchaser agrees to buy their house subject to satisfactory surveys/searches and would not condemn a buyer for pulling out if these came back with problems. I would also have empathy with any buyer who needed to pull out due to an unfortunate change of pertsonal circumstances, such as becoming unemployed. But to p[ull out because you've seen something better, that's just wrong. If you were still looking for semthing better you shouldn't have made an offer. We turned down loads of buyers to go with the one we chose. I would be really angry if he pulled out because he hadn't really been serious in the first place.

You have got me all really worried about our sale now, as it scares me to realise how many of you are unempathetic cutthroats that I would cross the street to avoid and certainly would never chose to knowingly do business with.


I quite often sub contract work bundles to Java programmers, I certainly hope I don't come across you in a business context Cyclone.

What ever happened to individuals having empathy, a social conscience and contributing to a pleuristic society.

Originally posted by Tony
Mod:

Please keep this thread civil. House selling raises high stress levels, but let's try to be a little nicer to each other. :thumbsup:

I am being civil :suspect:

:D

Originally posted by Funke88
I'm and Estate Agent here in Florida. The contract is signed upon acceptance of an offer. Both sides agree - one to sell and the other party to buy. Once signed no other offer can be accepted and both sides are locked into the deal. Back ups can only be in place in the event the first falls through. Legally the seller cannot accept another offer no matter how good it is. If they default on the contract they will be sued and be forced to sell to the first buyer. I have an English couple buying a condo here and was asked if this was binding. I assured them that it was. They said that in the UK the contract is signed at closing. Here the surveys are done and inspections paid for only when a guarantee form both sides is received. No gazzumping occurs. The person defaulting loses their deposit.

Isn't it similar to this in Scotland too? Sounds like the best way of doing it to me.

Originally posted by limpetboy
Isn't it similar to this in Scotland too? Sounds like the best way of doing it to me.

The problem with scotland is that every interested party has to have their own survey done before bidding as I understand. I think I will open a surveying practice there :)

Another problem with Scotland's system is that bids get sealed the same way they do in Sheffield... and the 'asking price' is officially the starting price. All non-fixed-price sales are listed as 'offers over' a given amount.

A bit off thread... but in reply to Cyclone. I work on EU funded projects to develop the skills of and opportunities for disadvantaged groups. Many of the companies with whom I do business and to whom I sub-contract work operate a two tier charging structure and charge less for work that brings an advantage to the wider community than they do for work that is purely commercial. I agree that this is very different from my house buying/selling situation, but I just wanted to point out that even in business there are peluristic approaches to work. The absolute cynic may say that these companies receieve in- kind benefits as their work is accredited to and acknowledged by a much wider business community thereby raising the potential to expand markets

But back on thread - surely, the point is, that if you agree to sell your house, subject to satisfactory survey, to a specific person at specific price, then albeit verbal, an agreement has been made and if you agree to do something you should do it and if you don't why should anyone trust or respect you? Or more to the point, how can you respect you?

Originally posted by Sara
A bit off thread... but in reply to Cyclone. I work on EU funded projects to develop the skills of and opportunities for disadvantaged groups. Many of the companies with whom I do business and to whom I sub-contract work operate a two tier charging structure and charge less for work that brings an advantage to the wider community than they do for work that is purely commercial. I agree that this is very different from my house buying/selling situation, but I just wanted to point out that even in business there are peluristic approaches to work. The absolute cynic may say that these companies receieve in- kind benefits as their work is accredited to and acknowledged by a much wider business community thereby raising the potential to expand markets

But back on thread - surely, the point is, that if you agree to sell your house, subject to satisfactory survey, to a specific person at specific price, then albeit verbal, an agreement has been made and if you agree to do something you should do it and if you don't why should anyone trust or respect you? Or more to the point, how can you respect you?

If they decide to pull out of this 'verbal agreement' before exchange, do you think you could sue for breach of this 'verbal agreement', for them to buy the property?

There was a time when if a young man had asked a young woman to marry him and he did not then she could ue him for breach of promise...

No, I don't have intimate knowledge of the law, but I doubt that sueing would be possible, and I would not like to contribute unneccesarily to a litigeous society, but this is not about the law, this is an ethical debate.

Originally posted by Sara
There was a time when if a young man had asked a young woman to marry him and he did not then she could ue him for breach of promise...

No, I don't have intimate knowledge of the law, but I doubt that sueing would be possible, and I would not like to contribute unneccesarily to a litigeous society, but this is not about the law, this is an ethical debate.

Ethical...maybe so. If you look at the housing market as a whole, you can't base much of what you do on ethics.

It comes down to a few things, you can let ethics form part of the sale and possibily end up cost your valuable time and money, and even the house you are moving up into. To quantify ones own ethics is fine, but you can't vouch for those of the buyer, who has up to the day of signing the contract to pull out for reasons unspecified or as vague as 'personal circumstances'.

I agree, and I know I have done the right thing for me to be able to live with myself, its the rest of you I worry about:suspect:

I'd rather have my ethics intact and lose time/money, but obviouslyu I would prefer to keep my ethics intact and for everything to turn out nice

I am however heartened a little by the poll, most people would do the ethical thing and nearly all would have good intentions...

Originally posted by Sara
I agree, and I know I have done the right thing for me to be able to live with myself, its the rest of you I worry about:suspect:

I'd rather have my ethics intact and lose time/money, but obviouslyu I would prefer to keep my ethics intact and for everything to turn out nice

I am however heartened a little by the poll, most people would do the ethical thing and nearly all would have good intentions...

Lets hope that all holds true for buyers too :)

What I am saying is, she may have offered £5k more, she may have offered £1 more. The amount isn't relevant. If she was happy enough to come to the door to offer you that, you could have taken her number as a back up in case of difficulty later. Its never official until those contracts are exchanged, and there is too many people out there willing to give up on a property, more so prior to survey.

Originally posted by Sara
I agree, and I know I have done the right thing for me to be able to live with myself, its the rest of you I worry about:suspect:


You just want to hope you never go for the same house as one of us :)

Anybody looking to buy property in Florida? Fancy a get away but don't want a time share? Buy a condo so you can use it once or twice a year. Then let a property management company rent it out for you, which will pay the mortgage. A great investment. Better than the stock market. They always appreciate.

For those of you who remember me in hotel management last year, well I lost my job due to Hurricane Ivan and went into Real Estate selling houses. See me as the "location, location, location" agent over here. You want it, and I'll find it.

Anyway back to gazumping. What's that?

btw Condos (apartments) don't need a survey. They are all part of a complex managed by a home owners association.