Unless the house was sold with multiple offers (and back-ups kept in the file drawer) sellers are reluctant to have this show down if there is still some hope of the buyer performing. I think it’s pretty rare that a seller tries to keep a buyer’s deposit when they have demonstrated that they can’t (or won’t) close.

I find that clients struggle to grasp the reverse logic of things like “unless you tell us there is a problem, no problem is assumed, and your protection disappears in 14 days with no notice or warning..”

Same applies here. Sure, we can let the agent miss the deadline because they’re “new” or just plain careless. Regardless, when we then come back with “tough luck,” my experience has been the buyer will dig in their heels and the transaction will not close, despite all the contracts in the world! Dead right but still DEAD.

That said, I LOVE the idea of asking your seller what they would like you to do. Takes the responsibility for the decision off of your back while, as you very correctly point out, they may not want you to do the “right thing.”

I’m drafting a one page summary of the Buyer’s responsibilities based on deadlines in our regional contract and completely explain Default. I’ve never really had a consumer that didn’t get things done in a timely manner, although they may need a little prodding.

I think the largest issue is that almost every contract I’ve ever seen buries the deadlines and undersells the potential penalties of default. The agents glaze over them and establish no standard of understanding with the Buyer who is often overwhelmed by the process anyway.

It would be much easier if the contracts had a summary of client responsibilities and deadlines in the document. Maybe everyone should ask their contract committees to consider this in the future.

In second deal, buyer again missed inspection timeframe. Agent said buyer didn’t want to do inspections (put out money) until buyer was sure he could get the loan (red flags red flags!). Shouldn’t you know that (pretty much) before you write the offer???? Buyer did inspections late. Seller refused to make repairs since he was past deadlines. We closed on this one, late (as yes the buyer DID indeed have problems getting the loan). It went thru, but took some time.

I blame the agents. Buyers sign contracts and most don’t understand them or realize how serious the time lines are. A good buyer’s agent keeps the buyer on track.

But as Bill Lublin pointed out, sometimes that does make the deal more contentious than not. I don’t purposely make it contentious, but when I represent someone, I represent them 100%. I am not here to make friends with the other agent and be best buds. I am here to do my best for my client, in his interests, not mine. Isn’t that the definition of “representation”?

Either we have contracts that mean something or we don’t. The rest is happy talk.

Good stuff, Matthew.

I had an agent with 15 days to do inspections recently, who failed to do them on time. His request to arrange inspections (which came on day 14) to get into the property on day 17 were denied. He was infuriated! It was his buyer’s right!

I replied no that he had 15 days to arrange this or get an extension. He did neither. He could not believe I would be so “strict” — in his words. Then the buyer wanted to know what the seller was hiding!

Too may agents don’t read the contracts or know what they mean.

The reason I liked passive removal was because it put more pressure on the parties to perform to the originally agreed upon dates and deadlines. With “passive” removal, after the deadlines pass, the contingencies are automatically removed. I think people should be able to make committments and live up to them, without having to be given a final notice in writing. “Active” removal requires more paperwork to make the original deadlines stick.

Those are all things that should be discussed with the Seller. The Seller should be making the decisions to risk the buyer’s leaving on some other term of the contract, etc… My broader point is that too often the agent tries to serve the other agent and transaction and not their client.

I see your side of the argument and felt the same way for several years. However, after watching several professional standards cases, I see where the agents are taking too much away from their clients in these scenarios and fighting battles that aren’t their’s to fight.

Your points should be made to the seller and they should weigh the risk and reward….