Property Sold - Seller Will Not Leave

[BestB]

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I wasn't there, neither were you or any other poster but I am able to read and interpret the OP accurately.   For instance, clearly, there was nothing in the contract allowing the ex-owner to stay, if there was, it's reasonable to assume that the OP would have mentioned it or not started the thread.   

 

I may be an expert in the law, I may not be but you'll never know that from me because it's irrelevant to my being able to read what the OP has stated.

 

What makes you think that I should be the only one to quote the laws, am I the only person expressing my opinion and stating some facts?   Why haven't you demanded that every post has a qualifying link/quote attached to it?   Including yours.

You the one keep beating your chest pretending to know what the law is.  So quote it , should be easy for an expert like yourself.

 

not only I already said I went through this kind of trouble twice in the past 3 months so logically would know little more than you but also stated there is a clause.

 

but once again , you know more so quote the law ????

[BestB]

4 hours ago, newnative said:

   Correct.  And his Big C 7 day return policy doesn't apply, either.  I checked, by the way, and the Big C return policy has a number of exceptions of what cannot be returned spelled out in detail in writing.  So, Big C is protecting itself with a written contract spelling everything out in detail.   Just as a  property buyer should.

Really you read big c contract? Where did you find that and in what language ?

[newnative]

7 minutes ago, BestB said:

Really you read big c contract? Where did you find that and in what language ?

      I read  the Big  C 7 day return policy you mentioned--which, by the way, has nothing to do with property purchases between a private buyer and seller.   It wasn't hard.  Google is your friend.  Basically, you can return intact items that are undamaged and retain their price tags within 7 days but there are some exceptions--liquids, some clothing items, fresh food, items that need to be refrigerated, powdered milk, etc.  

    Even though it really doesn't apply to real estate, the point I was making was Big C has it in writing as to what it accepts and doesn't accept with returns.  It has protected itself in writing and buyers and sellers should do the same with a well-written sales contract with everything agreed to by both parties.  

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, newnative said:

      I read  the Big  C 7 day return policy you mentioned--which, by the way, has nothing to do with property purchases between a private buyer and seller.   It wasn't hard.  Google is your friend.  Basically, you can return intact items that are undamaged and retain their price tags within 7 days but there are some exceptions--liquids, some clothing items, fresh food, items that need to be refrigerated, powdered milk, etc.  

    Even though it really doesn't apply to real estate, the point I was making was Big C has it in writing as to what it accepts and doesn't accept with returns.  It has protected itself in writing and buyers and sellers should do the same with a well-written sales contract with everything agreed to by both parties.  

Naturally food, perishable and personal hygiene products excluded , do not need a contract for common sense .

 

example of big c was to show another expert who claimed there is no such a thing as grace period anywhere. 
 

back to OP, there may well be a clause in the sales contract which he simply did not read as the one I have has it and gives 15 days.

 

If there was not one , again, buyer bought a property which was occupied. Buyer thought seller would be out already , but seller asked for 15 days.

 

If buyer calls police , police will not evict seller because seller has asked for 15 days which is a reasonable time and request .

 

buyer could claim seller is not paying rent for 2 weeks but buyer also did not ask .

 

I have no idea why make such a fuss over 15 days instead of being reasonable. Nothing to stop seller now from trashing the place just because buyer was unreasonable.

 

furthermore as buyer stated sale was handled by the agents so very possibly seller did tell the agents but agents did not tell the buyer in fear of problems or losing a sale.

 

 

[BestB]

7 hours ago, josthomz said:

What exactly is a “standard agreement when it comes to eviction”? Do people agree on eviction? Are you another industrial troll? For gods sake what are you talking about! 
 

Is it an eviction letter you mean? 
 

No, I’m not interested in that. 
 

I want you to show us a standard condo purchase contract where it states that the buyer should wait for a grace period of X days after having paid in full for the property and having had the property title transferred to his name.
 

Or that otherwise if after full payment and title transferred to the buyer there still is someone living at the property he has a grace period of X days to move out.
 

If you can’t provide this, then don’t continue this embarrassment to yourself.

There is a standard agreement used by the lawyers just as there is one in the west . Naturally it can be modified that is assuming agents or landlord used a lawyer instead of writing up their own 

 

by standard I refer to reasonable days and conditions within the law

Edited May 17, 2021 by BestB

[newnative]

31 minutes ago, BestB said:

Could not be bothered to read entire drivel but you have read thai sales contract right ? All of it in thai right ? Quote for me section 11 and then write more drivel of what it should be or how it is .

 

and no there is no contract between you and big c, it’s simply a policy which you denied existed few posts before. And for you to even mention it makes me wonder if you know what big c is Or where thailand is located.

   I said "Big C may, indeed, have a 7 day return policy."  Not the same as 'denied existed'.   In any case, a Big C return policy--which you originally introduced as an example  that could also apply to property sales--has nothing to do with real estate transactions.  Being able to return a shirt to a store does not automatically translate into being able to return a condo you have bought.   

   

[newnative]

1 hour ago, BestB said:

Naturally food, perishable and personal hygiene products excluded , do not need a contract for common sense .

 

example of big c was to show another expert who claimed there is no such a thing as grace period anywhere. 
 

back to OP, there may well be a clause in the sales contract which he simply did not read as the one I have has it and gives 15 days.

 

If there was not one , again, buyer bought a property which was occupied. Buyer thought seller would be out already , but seller asked for 15 days.

 

If buyer calls police , police will not evict seller because seller has asked for 15 days which is a reasonable time and request .

 

buyer could claim seller is not paying rent for 2 weeks but buyer also did not ask .

 

I have no idea why make such a fuss over 15 days instead of being reasonable. Nothing to stop seller now from trashing the place just because buyer was unreasonable.

 

furthermore as buyer stated sale was handled by the agents so very possibly seller did tell the agents but agents did not tell the buyer in fear of problems or losing a sale.

 

 

     You made my points with this post.  First with:  You 'do not need a contract for common sense'.  Oh dear.  Trouble ahead.  What you may think is common sense, another may not.  Which is why everything must be in writing and agreed to by both parties.  By the way, I didn't see any specific mention of 'personal hygiene products' being excluded in Big C's return policy.  But, powdered milk is.  Go figure.   So much for your thinking everyone would be on the same page with what would be 'common sense'.

    Next.  'Nothing to stop seller now from trashing the place...'  Indeed.  Or, from accidently burning it down.  Which is why you don't allow the seller to stay in your bought and paid for property without  written rental contract terms agreed to by both parties before the sale.

[newnative]

2 hours ago, josthomz said:

 

I have a condo purchase contract in front of me, the original in Thai and a non legally binding translation in English. A contract that I signed myself obviously not so long ago. 

 

There is no mention in the English one about any grace period where the former owner can continue inhabiting the condo after I have paid in full. And neither is there any mention of this in the Thai version of it, since before signing the contract I obviously had an unrelated third party translate the Thai contract to make sure what I was signing wasn't different. 

 

You care to show me a Condo Purchase Contract which states the grace period you're talking about?

I agree.  I have never had this grace period clause in any of the contracts I have signed--either as a buyer or as a seller.  As a buyer, I certainly would not sign any sales contract that had it in it.  

[arick]

You should of not completed until the property was vacant. When it's vacant is when you tranfer.. Good luck in the courts that will be months to years with them half working because of corvid or golf games. 

[jackdd]

14 hours ago, BestB said:

Could not be bothered to read entire drivel but you have read thai sales contract right ? All of it in thai right ? Quote for me section 11 and then write more drivel of what it should be or how it is .

Obviously nobody here has ever seen such contracts.

If you claim it exists, show some examples. We can't show/quote something which doesn't exist.

If you can't show any examples because you are just making stuff up: Stop trolling.

Edited May 18, 2021 by jackdd

[BestB]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

Obviously nobody here has ever seen such contracts.

If you claim it exists, show some examples. We can't show/quote something which doesn't exist.

If you can't show any examples because you are just making stuff up: Stop trolling.

Actually what is more obvious is that half commenting do not even live in Thailand, other half never seen a sales contract and the rest can not read or speak thai to know what they have seen, so pretty much people like you

Edited May 18, 2021 by BestB

[BestB]

14 hours ago, josthomz said:

 

I have a condo purchase contract in front of me, the original in Thai and a non legally binding translation in English. A contract that I signed myself obviously not so long ago. 

 

There is no mention in the English one about any grace period where the former owner can continue inhabiting the condo after I have paid in full. And neither is there any mention of this in the Thai version of it, since before signing the contract I obviously had an unrelated third party translate the Thai contract to make sure what I was signing wasn't different. 

 

You care to show me a Condo Purchase Contract which states the grace period you're talking about?

So lets take your version for a minute, condo sold has a tenant, then what? would it still be the same contract or an amendment would be made?

 

Does your contract state condo is sold empty or with owner or tenant occupied? 

[BestB]

15 hours ago, newnative said:

     You made my points with this post.  First with:  You 'do not need a contract for common sense'.  Oh dear.  Trouble ahead.  What you may think is common sense, another may not.  Which is why everything must be in writing and agreed to by both parties.  By the way, I didn't see any specific mention of 'personal hygiene products' being excluded in Big C's return policy.  But, powdered milk is.  Go figure.   So much for your thinking everyone would be on the same page with what would be 'common sense'.

    Next.  'Nothing to stop seller now from trashing the place...'  Indeed.  Or, from accidently burning it down.  Which is why you don't allow the seller to stay in your bought and paid for property without  written rental contract terms agreed to by both parties before the sale.

Speaking of common sense, you did not see personal hygiene products? so i suppose panties or tampons can be returned then?

[newnative]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

Obviously nobody here has ever seen such contracts.

If you claim it exists, show some examples. We can't show/quote something which doesn't exist.

If you can't show any examples because you are just making stuff up: Stop trolling.

    I know I haven't and I've bought and sold lots of condos--in Rayong, Pattaya, and Bangkok.  All the contracts have been different.  Lumpini, Sansiri, SC Asset, and Raimon Land all had their own.  With private sales, the contracts were done by the agents, lawyers, or real estate agencies--none the same.  None of my contracts had a clause allowing the seller to remain in the condo for 15 days and I would not have signed such a contract unless there was a satisfactory--to me as the buyer--rent back contract also in place.  

[jackdd]

11 minutes ago, BestB said:

Actually what is more obvious is that half commenting do not even live in Thailand, other half never seen a sales contract and the rest can not read or speak thai to know what they have seen, so pretty much people like you

This isn't from a sales contract, but from a rental contract. Not related to the situation here.

You have anything else? Maybe ask somebody who can read Thai to translate it for you before you post it here, to make sure it's not again unrelated.

Edited May 18, 2021 by jackdd

[OneMoreFarang]

After three days and 6 pages still no update from the OP. Interesting... 

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, jackdd said:

This isn't from a sales contract, but from a rental contract. Not related to the situation here.

You have anything else? Maybe ask somebody who can read Thai to translate it for you before you post it here, to make sure it's not again unrelated.

 

Again property sold had a tenant, in this case owner occupied, how is it not related?

 

Indeed may be ask someone who actually understands

[jackdd]

Just now, BestB said:

Again property sold had a tenant, in this case owner occupied, how is it not related?

No, OPs property didn't have a tenant, maybe start by reading OP again to make sure you even understand the situation.

 

The picture which you posted is part of rental contract saying that if the tenant violates the contract, and the landlord cancels the contract due to this, the tenant has 15 days to vacate the property, if he doesn't he has to the amount written on the dotted line. Please explain how this is related to the discussion here.

[newnative]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

Speaking of common sense, you did not see personal hygiene products? so i suppose panties or tampons can be returned then?

   Making my point once again.  What one person thinks is common sense might not tally with another.   You're asking the question so possibly the answer is not readily apparent.

    Same with sales contracts.  And, all the more reason to have a strong sales contract that doesn't leave questions unanswered.  You want to remain in the condo for 2 weeks?  Make sure that is agreed upon and in the sales contract with rental terms.  Want the leather sofa?  Make sure it is listed in an addendum of what items convey.  

[BestB]

1 minute ago, jackdd said:

No, OPs property didn't have a tenant, maybe start by reading OP again to make sure you even understand the situation.

 

The picture which you posted is part of rental contract saying that if the tenant violates the contract, and the landlord cancels the contract due to this, the tenant has 15 days to vacate the property, if he doesn't he has to the amount written on the dotted line. Please explain how this is related to the discussion here.

Indeed start reading and comprehending, seller was living there ie a tenant and also known as owner occupied.

new buyer in theory cancels the contract by purchasing the property, tenant has 15 days to vacate, in this case once again tenant is the previous owner, also known as owner occupied 

[Susco]

5 minutes ago, BestB said:

Indeed start reading and comprehending, seller was living there ie a tenant and also known as owner occupied.

new buyer in theory cancels the contract by purchasing the property, tenant has 15 days to vacate, in this case once again tenant is the previous owner, also known as owner occupied 

 

You must really get desperate. 

 

How can an owner have a rental contract with himself?

 

You know, when you are in a hole, you better stop digging.

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, BestB said:

Indeed start reading and comprehending, seller was living there ie a tenant and also known as owner occupied.

new buyer in theory cancels the contract by purchasing the property, tenant has 15 days to vacate, in this case once again tenant is the previous owner, also known as owner occupied 

Now it definitely becomes silly.

[newnative]

7 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Now it definitely becomes silly.

As I said in an earlier post, you are now in Cuckooland.