I wonder how many people standing in those ‘laddermania’ queues in Q4 '06 are in exactly the same boat?
I wonder is that in Sandyford?
Those apt shells in rockbrook are looking very weather beaten.
if the apt is not built by a certain date, can she get out of the deal?
“In a reasonable time” might the courts can be ok when applying test of reasonableness, but “in a practical time”, builder can always argue that it’s not practical until he can loosen up his bank a bit. Tricky one, I’d sue the solicitor that let her sign such an open ended piece of crap.
well - it says that her contract says:
so it sounds like she’s hog-tied to that thing - there is no date for completion
Mind you “in a practical time” is an interesting wording. Twenty-two months doesn’t sound all that “practical” to me. If you had a child on the way when you signed that contract it certainly wouldn’t have been practical.
that does sound like some lazy work on the part of the her solicitor alright
Oh My God. The writing was on the wall in 2006 in terms of the property market and how it was going to go. And the country was full of stories about builders not delivering on time for the previous 4 years anyway.
I wouldn’t buy from plans anyway but if I did, there would be a cast iron clause in there about non performance in the event of noncompletion - including snagging - by a specific date, 12 months after contract signature.
What she appears to have is a contract that a builder will deliver her a property at some unspecified time in the future and if she doesn’t want it then that’s just tough she has to buy it anyway.
I swear to God, if I was spending 400,000E on something I’d want a fairly snappy delivery of it.
OT but I used to find it funny that people would (and probably still do) pay full whack for a new car (odd enough in itself) then have to wait 6-9 months for delivery.
I hope the Irish consumer (or the ‘sheeple’) is learning a valuable lesson here.
Its behaviour like this (signing contracts heavily weighted in the builders favour) that contributed a lot to the bubble in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake let the 20K go and take your chances with getting sued. You’re unlikely to where’s the builder going to get money for lawyers? And will he risk a judge saying 22 months isn’t practical and you’ve get her 20K now piss off.
20K is pennies compared to the amount she’ll lose if she goes ahead with this.
Lesson learned, expensive lesson, but learn from it and move on. Welcome to the bottom of the pyramid.
One has to wonder, was the solicitor by any chance the one that was on site, or available at a special rate for the development
The judgement of a court should be based upon, what the reasonable person would consider “a practical time” to be. The next consideration would probably to whom the practicality of the time refers. If it refers to the builder, she would seem to be stumped. If it is non-specific, you could end up looking for precedence or a legal definition to the word ‘practical’.
That said she should challenge it and enquire with her solictor about the possibility of invoicing the builder for loss of interest on her €20k. She wouldn’t get anything but it would put the wind up him. It may give her leverage to get both parties to agree to dissolve the contract without taking it into a court.
Can a contract with such loose terms be binding, isn’t a contract supposed to protect both sides equally. This phrase seems carte blanche for a developer to hold onto your money indefinitely, I have to say if it was me I would be giving the second solicitor the boot and finding one with a bit more teeth. What would be considered practical time, twice the average apartment build lenght, three times?
I don’t think so ray. There are many contracts that are heavily weighted on the side of one party for whatever reason.
That was my first thought.
I think its a little falacious to look to blame the solicitor, as is mentioned in the article; if the solicitor had tried to re-negotiate the original contract the builder would have just told them to sod off & sold to the next punter.
Then she’d have blamed the solicitor for loosing her dream house.
are we havin a laugh!!!
a bigger bunch of bubble hungry mutton headed cannies you couldn’t wish for
sue em all !!!
lets hear the pips squeak.
bankrupt the law society with negligence suits
A new tshirt
“my solicitor OK’D this contract and all I got was a half built show box”
Show box, eh??
Better that than a shoebox if the following sketch is to be believed (courtesy of Monty Python):
Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.
Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh?
You’re right there.
Who’d have thought thirty year ago we’d all be sittin’ here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o’ tea.
A cup o’ cold tea.
Without milk or sugar.
In a cracked cup, an’ all.
Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, “Money doesn’t buy you happiness, son”.
Aye, ‘e was right.
Aye, ‘e was.
I was happier then and I had nothin’. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, ‘alf the floor was missing, and we were all ‘uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t’ corridor!
Oh, we used to dream of livin’ in a corridor! Would ha’ been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.
Well, when I say ‘house’ it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.
We were evicted from our ‘ole in the ground; we ‘ad to go and live in a lake.
You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t’ shoebox in t’ middle o’ road.
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t’ mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi’ his belt.
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o’clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of ‘ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to ‘ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o’clock at night and lick road clean wit’ tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit’ bread knife.
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o’clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
And you try and tell the young people of today that … they won’t believe you.
Handing over 20k for something you can’t see, can’t touch, all on the promise that it will be ready at some “practical” time in the future.
Yes, we were an odd lot.
You are also uncertain of what exaclty is going to handed over; how big it will be, whether they are going to make the lounge room 5 feet wide and 20 feet long instead of 10 feet wide and 10 feet long.
All these developers graduated for the Barnum School of Sales.