A question for agents and others re the legal position as it pertains to the closing date

[Anonymous]

So is the issue the seller wants a rent back - or the seller wants the larger offer?

Sorry seller - if you wanted more $ - you should not have accepted the original offer.

[Anonymous]

As long as someone is willing to litigate to enforce the contract everything is okay. Litigation is such fun!

[Anonymous]

Now that the OP has offered additional details we know there is an addendum which may give flexibility to the seller as to when possession must be given to the buyer. This is the reason I said you can't opine on the seller's rights - or the rights of the buyer - without reviewing the entire contract. The seller was constrained as far what was shared and anyone with half a brain could tell there was information that had not been provided.

As far as the "best efforts" clause is concerned, it is a very complex area of the law and it depends on the specifics and details that are within the clause. An overly broad clause is likely to be problematical.

Contract negotiation is often predicated on the leverage that the parties to a negotiation have or think they have. IMO, the final resolution will be some sort of compromise. It appears the seller is seeking a rent-back and that will likely be granted. It really would not serve either party's interests to litigate this both from a standpoint of cost and ultimate outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that the OP has offered additional details we know there is an addendum which may give flexibility to the seller as to when possession must be given to the buyer. This is the reason I said you can't opine on the seller's rights - or the rights of the buyer - without reviewing the entire contract. The seller was constrained as far what was shared and anyone with half a brain could tell there was information that had not been provided.

As far as the "best efforts" clause is concerned, it is a very complex area of the law and it depends on the specifics and details that are within the clause. An overly broad clause is likely to be problematical.

Contract negotiation is often predicated on the leverage that the parties to a negotiation have or think they have. IMO, the final resolution will be some sort of compromise. It appears the seller is seeking a rent-back and that will likely be granted. It really would not serve either party's interests to litigate this both from a standpoint of cost and ultimate outcome.

Op said clearly that the relative is not interested in a rent back, it is interested in selling the property to a higher bidder. this is why I do not understand what trick OP's relative is planning to play. I have not read the contract, but from what OP says it seems that there will be a closing where the property will pass from the seller to ther buyer. the "best effort" clause simply may give OP's relative a ground not to completely vacate the property after closing, but the property will not be his anymore (and the buyer owns it and may move in too). how in this scenario is OP's relative able to see an opening to void the contract and sell the property to the higher bidder? is OP's relative planning to stay in the house so the buyer will have to pay extra to get rid of him? and this is a high end property?? I can imagine the show for the high end neighbors............. at most the buyer can flip the property to the higher bidder, still with OP's relative inside............

[Anonymous]

Let's remind everyone what OP's original post said:

Anonymous wrote:If a real estate transaction were scheduled to close on a specific date, at what time does the seller have to vacate the house? Would the seller be in compliance with a standard contract if he/she vacates by the end of the day or does it have to be the start of the day or before the closing or before the walk-through.

I am not asking what is customary but [u]what is required by law under the standard RE contract[b] not to be in violation of the contract.

One of the thread's stupid jackass real estate agents here and the original agent commenting. We answer questions based on information given. Again: The standard contract is mentioned twice. No mention of additional/side deals. I answered the question as asked and answered it correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

You don't know what it says and given that an attorney told the seller to how to proceed, it must safeguard the seller's ability to stay in the house after the close.

Well, agree to disagree. There are plenty of stupid attorneys that advise plenty of stupid things. If the "best efforts" clause prevents the property from passing, it nullifies the contract and money won't change hands. The clause does something less than that or the OP wouldn't be asking the question. Given that it is not a standard clause, the parties probably have differing opinions on exactly what the clause accomplishes. As a buyer, I would take possession of my property and leave the seller in a position of having to convince a court of the meaning of the "best efforts" clause. And I would counterclaim for trespass.

+1. And since it is a clause that the Seller insisted on and inserted, any lack of clarity regarding the clause will be interpreted in favor of the Buyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were the buyer, I would close and immediately drive to my new property with a locksmith. The OP's cousin or whatever is then free to bring their action arguing that the "best efforts" clause prevented cousin's unmoved personal property from conveying with the house that I now own.

Good plan in theory but there is an attorney involved who is advising the seller to enforce the close on schedule and then not vacate the property and they have given the buyer notice that is what they intend doing.

How can they do that? It doesn't sound legal..

Yes, whatever this "best efforts" clause says, it certainly does not prevent the property from changing hands. The seller no longer owns the house and the buyer does. Plus, in this case, the seller is simply playing games to try to nullify the contract. Once it closes, the seller's game is over.

You don't know what it says and given that an attorney told the seller to how to proceed, it must safeguard the seller's ability to stay in the house after the close.

Well, agree to disagree. There are plenty of stupid attorneys that advise plenty of stupid things. If the "best efforts" clause prevents the property from passing, it nullifies the contract and money won't change hands. The clause does something less than that or the OP wouldn't be asking the question. Given that it is not a standard clause, the parties probably have differing opinions on exactly what the clause accomplishes. As a buyer, I would take possession of my property and leave the seller in a position of having to convince a court of the meaning of the "best efforts" clause. And I would counterclaim for trespass.

+1
Now I got your s***
YOu figure out how to get in and get it