Developers go to court to force buyers to buy: Times

According to this article the ‘gloves are off’ and Treasury Holdings are leading the charge with the developers of the Spencer Dock and Heston South Quarter developments commencing proceedings against shy buyers. Ronan O’Gara was among those whom proceedings commenced but the article states that he is in the process of completing the purchase. … 26309.html


So what happens if you sue somebody and win but they no longer have any way to get a mortgage for the original amount? Theres no point in suing poor people. So presumably they are making sure to only sue people who have the money to complete the purchase right? Because otherwise thats a lot of legal fees for no good reason.

I’d assume a judgement against a person could be used to sieze other assets… but I might be wrong.

I suppose it allows them to (look aware English purists) legally steal the deposits of anyone who put down money and who now can’t get funding.
It’s pretty rough on people but as has been said many times here, they are probably better off even if they can’t see it themselves.

Roughly (and in all matters legal, a generic conversation always avoids being specific) … if one party is rendered unable to fulfil their obligations under a contract with another party due to the act, intervention or omission of a third party then a defence of “a Force Majeure” may be offered. However, the contact may limit that in so far as stating that there is a time limit on how long either party can put off completion, especially if to delay would render a benefit to the delaying party.

Blue Horseshoe

BH - that’s not the case. A contract may be subject to mortgage approval. If not, then the builder isn’t concerned with how you intend to pay, and you are liable for failure to do so.

Needle - if I get a judgment against you for say €150k (representing the difference between the price you agreed to pay and the price for which I ultimately sold the apartment) then I can enforce against any other assets you might have or by obtaining a garnishee order against any other money which you might be due in the future.

Apart from the welfare?

Welfare payments aren’t protected in any way as I recall. In fact I’m fairly sure I remember them being garnished as part of court judgements in the past.

Of course, you’ll be a long time paying off 100k at €100 a week :unamused:

My confusion arises from the unwillingness of the courts to garnish welfare payments for non-payment of fines, preferring instead to impose a custodial sentence (for contempt, from what I can gather). It’s a genuine confusion - I thought welfare payments were untouchable?

The courts can order a payment; but I’m not sure they can order it at source.

I think that’s where the conflict arises. The Courts cannot tell the state to withhold a portion of a welfare payment for, say, Harvey Norman. They can however tell a citizen to pay H.N. €20 a week out of their welfare, & if the don’t, to send them down for contempt.

I’m open to correction from m’learned friends though :slight_smile:

Thanks fishfoodie.

If Banks are backed by the state then contract law in invalid in this agreement as only one party now holds the risk.

Surely this is enough for the other party to walk if I understand PTGK view on things to be correct.

YM - there’s a difference between fine enforcement powers and debt enforcement powers. I’m not suggesting garnishing welfare though… I had in mind things like redundancy payouts, inheritances, etc where the size merits the cost.

Fair enough. My questions are way off topic, really. We hear a lot about people going to prison for non-payment of license fees, for example, or court imposed fines for ‘behaviour’. It costs the state a lot to keep people in prison, even for a short while. There has to be a better way!

People only get sent to prison in such cases because they have completely thumbed their noses at the justice system. They haven’t turned up to court sessions, they haven’t communicated a reason for no show, they’ve just acted as though the court doesn’t exist.

If you have action pending on foot of a court summons you have a duty to turn up to defend yourself. Not to do so is to give two fingers to the courts. What do you expect them to do? Roll over?

So no, there isn’t a better way.

A judge will not make unreasonable demands of anyone who turns up and honestly explains the predicament they are in. They are almost always on the side of the underdog in such cases - it salves their consciences when they are lowering a mature vintage of Chateau Latour after a hard day on the bench.

From the article

Is it just me or are these not contradictory statements?

Regarding the last sentence 1) did the journalist do a survey of the tenants in the apartments himself, 2) does he have a VI in this complex or 3) is he just regurgitating bull from some glossy marketing brochure.

My bets are on number 3

Deposits are guaranteed. The banks are not backed by the state, only Anglo is owned by us.

The other two / three are private entities.

And would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Well no doubt but I’m cynical and biased from reading the pin for so long - but I’d pretty much take it as read that is just lies and bluster that the writer has been told to insert. Doesn’t matter if the statement makes no sense in the context of his previous statements - property is always selling and renting well. Always. There is always a surprising-large demand and there is always a big pent-up demand that is going to explode any minute now and return property-prices to “normal” bubblecious prices. Because property is a one-way bet. And if the doom-sayers would only shut up for a minute everything would return to normal. And its always a good time to buy if you’re canny.

any body have information about huestion south quarter . as anybody been brought before the courts yet.