Quote:
Originally Posted by ikaris
^^ I know of four separate examples with three different builders that this type of clause was put in the contract. In only one case was the clause removed. In the other three times, the developer refused to change the clause and in the end, the buyers refused to commit to that contract.
|
Oh definitely, many builders were putting that clause into their contracts. I think I even had one contact like that myself.
But the important part is did they exercise them? And under what circumstances? If costs are spiraling out of control and you don't know from one week to the next how much it will cost to build a place, having something like that to protect yourself makes some sense. I don't agree with it, but they're fully within their rights to do so.
In fact one of the people down the street built a place where something happened that the builder ended up having to spend like $40,000 extra to fix. They could have exercised that clause at that time to get out of paying, but they didn't. It was the builder's own mistake, so not using the clause was the right thing to do and would have been my expectation of them, but legally they weren't obligated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikaris
Perhaps my view is jaded, but I think it's despicable that a developer would even try that.
|
Try to exercise it for the purposes of profit I agree.. Put the clause in to try and mitigate risk, I don't think it's a great move but the market forces dictate. For a while not every builder in Chestermere had that clause, and the ones that didn't I think saw more business. Eventually they all had it because there were SO many people trying to buy the builders could basically pick and choose the best buyer for themselves.
Now things are different, so those who didn't like that clause then can probably buy now without it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikaris
As for price renegotiation, I've already been able to do that on a condo that I've purchased. The developer that I have been dealing with has been very respectable and reasonable. It's not like I expect the developer to absorb the loss entirely, but they were happy to help share the pain in order to keep me as a customer.
|
That's nice of them, and I'm sure it was a business decision for them to keep a customer (and to not have to deal with the hassle of taking it back and trying to sell it themselves). But I don't think it should be expected of them, and if they don't I don't think they deserve negative attitude.
And I don't understand, absorb what loss? You've said loss twice now, but what loss is there?