Developers to go to court over incomplete sales

People will do anything to get out of these contracts now. Can only assume many are struck at 30-40% above a realistic selling price today

Its funny but there are guys who bought 50m$ apartments overlooking Central Park in Manhattan looking for their 10m$ deposit back as they claim that the completed products windows are a bit too small and the ceilings just a tad too low versus what they expected from plans!

Victoria faced a similar situation (not as bad mind) around 2004. The arse completely fell out of the inner city apartment market due to oversupply, and all these buyers who had bought off the plans in 2001-2002 were trying to get out of their contracts, as the apartments would be worth less on completion than what they were priced at off the plans.

A clever legal firm found that the builders contracts used by the developers (which required an upfront 10% deposit) were illegal, as under legislation no more than a 5% deposit was allowed. The Docklands developers were all facing financial ruin, as thousands of apartment contracts would be reneged on, and they would also have to refund all the deposits.

The Victorian government immediately rushed through a law to make it legal to charge a 10% deposit on an off the plans purchase **and they made it retrospective. ** 8) So everyone was forced to complete.

That’ll be on Tom’s checklist then but in this case, I agree that contracts should be binding and that the BTL’s need to understand the consequences of singing your name to a contract.

I think most BTLs thought that a contract off plans was simply license to print money.
Unfortunately without a license, attempting to print money is called forgery and can end up getting you into a lot of trouble.

Imbedded in the definition of a contract is the term “a meeting of minds”
Are you saying that a meeting of minds has occoured even when one party to the contract has had the most pertainent information (ie sales price data) witheld?

what would happen if you bought off the plans and signed a contract
price went up and developer said sorry but i am going to sell to another person at higher price

unfortunately a contract works both ways so once you sign it you are legally obliged to complete on it

all bets work both ways

Hi Murf, can you expand on this one a bit, I am not getting your point re pertinent info.

Is it not impossible to have a “meeting of minds” when one or both parties to a contract are denied access to the pertinant info?

If the developer does take the buyer to court, and wins, does he get his legal fees paid too?

The question is was anyone denied access to Pertinent info?

What about a defence that the contract is unenforceable due to the buyers temporary insanity. And the proof; anyone entering into contract to pay hundreds of thousands of yoyo’s for a flat in Ireland over the past few years was indisputably exhibiting irrationality and mental unsoundness.

Possibly the soundest recession proof business model to date :wink:

Or failing that you could use the Nuremberg favourite that you were just following orders, Bertie told you to buy.

Your honour when my client signed the contaract he was so confused he doesn’t know whether to scratch his watch or wind his arse. I rest my case.

Your Honour, my client signed this contract because a little voice in his head told him to stop cribbin’ and moanin’ and either sign it or go and commit suicide…

However on further investigation, CCTV footage seems to show a television in the background showing footage of our former Taoiseach…

I came sum up my feelings in two words:

Fuck 'em !

They were Jack ( or Jill ) the lad down the Pub after they signed on the dotted line. Now, they’re paying the consequences. Its these people who inflated the bubble & denied others the opportunity of buying ‘A Home’. Again; Fuck 'em.

No Joy, just a rare moment in Ireland, where you know someone has gotten exactly what they asked for, & what they deserved.

I don’t know why most posters think it’s just BTL purchasers who’ll be affected.
I’d imagine there were a lot of young people “looking to get onto the property ladder” who purchased these apartments. Most of the threads on AAM are from people who originally intended on occupying the apartment. But now, they can’t get the money, or split up from their partner and can’t afford on their own, or don’t want to get into instant negative equity.

So say what you want about contract law, but to assume only BTL specu-vestors will be affected is naive.

I know one of the barristers who’s been putting forward some of the test cases. Its all been carried out very sensitivily, but only to ensure that the builder is safe if they move with these cases.
Hence its only hitting the papers now; the test cases have been cleared by the judge to be heard, so theres nothing unconstitutional about them.
If you signed the contract, you signed the contract.

3 years ago if you signed the contract the builder didn’t ask for more when the house appreciated before you got your keys.
Now they are not going to ask for less. Why should they. :mrgreen:

Mr “Canny” and Mr “savy” were and are nothing more than pawns in the game being played by builders, bankers, brokers etc. Pinsters have now entered the game and are postioned well to make a difference. However there are some who want to sacrifice the pawns for little or no gain to the public and country as a whole.
The big fish that you need to attack is not this pawn but the instutions and cartels which set the gumbeen up.
I am not suggesting that the contracts are non binding or should be discarded rather that all avenues should be explored to try and find an out for the people in question. Laws should be changed and new laws written if needed to ensure that transpairency exists in future realestate (and all business) dealings.I would go a step further and suggest that all zoning be reviewed and realestate contracts be standardized (spelling?).
The reason I am suggesting this is that if the youth of today are saddeled with this unnecessary debt they will be in a choke hold for the rest of their lifes and will be unable to contribute in a meaningfull way to the countrys economy, infact they will more than likely be a burden and then you all will suffer.
Again to use the chess game as an alalogy…if YOUR pawns are all gone it is going to be alot harder to protect the queen against the enemy. 8- BD

Ps What happened to the “no glee” rule?