Tulsi joins the party of Common Sense

[alyx]

Hey

I need some sound advice

On March the first, I entered a written, signed agreement to sell my condo

This contract stipulates that the buyer (foreigner) is to pay the full amount in three equal installments: April 11 / April 12 / April 13

It also specifies that, in the case the buyer were to give up on the terms, the first installment would not be refunded. Instead it would be used as payment in full of the rental of the unit (ending March 2017)

Today , after more than six months, the seller e mailed me, letting me know that she was not interested anymore (mentioning that she would remain as a tenant but asking me what was to be done....whatever it means: I know I should ask for clarification but it is a delicate situation and I would appreciate your thoughts) to which I replied that there was no problem as we were sticking to the terms of the contract

When we drew the contract I was pretty sure that the sale was obvious, but now I am a bit nervous and wonder if I should hold my ground if anything were to go sour

Thans for your replies

[bob4you]

Your post does not make sense, according to the terms of the contract it should be paid in full, nothing to rescind? Or do you mead 3 payment April 2011, April 2012, April 2013?

Legally you have a Bilateral contract (Bi 2 parties) in a Bilateral contract both parties must agree to any changes, 1 party cannot. They have the use of the condo until 2017 unless you both agree to a modification.

[stgrhe]

To correctly interpret the contract you need to post its entire contract (names deleted of course) so we can read the wordings, else it is only guess-work. A well-worded contract specifies the penalties under different circumstances for which a contract is breached. It should also have a well-worded "Termination By Default" clause that specifies the conditions under which a contract may be terminated and the consequences for the parties.

Also, unless a contract has an expire date it is open ended and will never expire. Many contracts and missing such fundamental details, which could lead to unwanted circumstances for either party.

[thaiwanderer]

If correctly worded I suspect nothing need be done but even there I'd prefer at the very least to have her confirm her position in writing.

However it could now be interpreted as an unregistered lease of more than 3 years.

Even if not its probably preferable to enter a new contract cancelling the original and setting out the lease.

[alyx]

Your post does not make sense, according to the terms of the contract it should be paid in full, nothing to rescind? Or do you mead 3 payment April 2011, April 2012, April 2013?

Legally you have a Bilateral contract (Bi 2 parties) in a Bilateral contract both parties must agree to any changes, 1 party cannot. They have the use of the condo until 2017 unless you both agree to a modification.

Hey

Thank you for answering

Sorry if the wording is wrong: would you please correct it, as I do not understand where I faulted .

What I meant was that the whole amount had to be paid in a timeframe of three years, it seemed obvious to me, in three installments, at which time the payment was to be completed

Edited September 26, 2011 by alyx

[Tatsujin]

It's a little late to change the wording of the contract is it not . . . ?

Here's my take on this based on what you've said so far . . . the buyer entered into agreement with you to purchase condo with 3 x equal payments to be made in 2011, 2012, 2013 to make up the full agreed value of the purchase price.

If the buyer decides not to continue with the purchase, they do not get their 33.33% deposit returned, instead this is used to fund their rental on the property until 2017.

That is what you've agreed to as far as I understand it.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Tatsujin

[alyx]

Thanks for the orther replies

I will post the contract tomorrow

[alyx]

It's a little late to change the wording of the contract is it not . . . ?

Here's my take on this based on what you've said so far . . . the buyer entered into agreement with you to purchase condo with 3 x equal payments to be made in 2011, 2012, 2013 to make up the full agreed value of the purchase price.

If the buyer decides not to continue with the purchase, they do not get their 33.33% deposit returned, instead this is used to fund their rental on the property until 2017.

That is what you've agreed to as far as I understand it.

Hello Tatsujin

Thanks

No I am not trying to change the wording....it is just that I do not understand why Bob said my wording was not correct enough to be fully understood

What you are stating is what I meant

Thanks

[Tatsujin]

@alyx - it's hard to be sure without seeing the entire contract, but your 'tenant' in theory has the right to remain in the property until the end of March 2017 according to what you have said without paying any additional rent. The 'rent' up to the end of March 2017 would be the initial 33.33% payment you received.

Is that correct?

[alyx]

@alyx - it's hard to be sure without seeing the entire contract, but your 'tenant' in theory has the right to remain in the property until the end of March 2017 according to what you have said without paying any additional rent. The 'rent' up to the end of March 2017 would be the initial 33.33% payment you received.

Is that correct?

That is quite correct

As a matter of fact I am quite happy about it too as the first installement amounts to the equivalent of that rental period

I am just nervous about the fact that she could turn around and say that she wanted her money (or part of it) back which I am not willing to do, as I deem it is an honest deal for both of us

I must admit that I have not heard anything since (regarding the matter) but one mail telling me that she had started taking some classes, yet , not a word about it.

Edited September 26, 2011 by alyx

[alyx]

Ooops

I have just realised that there is a mistake in my original post

"Today , after more than six months, the seller e mailed me"

I meant to write

"Today , after more than six months, the buyer e mailed me"

Edited September 26, 2011 by alyx

[PattayaParent]

@alyx - it's hard to be sure without seeing the entire contract, but your 'tenant' in theory has the right to remain in the property until the end of March 2017 according to what you have said without paying any additional rent. The 'rent' up to the end of March 2017 would be the initial 33.33% payment you received.

Is that correct?

That is quite correct

As a matter of fact I am quite happy about it too as the first installement amounts to the equivalent of that rental period

I am just nervous about the fact that she could turn around and say that she wanted her money (or part of it) back which I am not willing to do, as I deem it is an honest deal for both of us

I must admit that I have not heard anything since (regarding the matter) but one mail telling me that she had started taking some classes, yet , not a word about it.

Then there's no breach of contract. You are both abiding by what was originally written in the contract.

The only problems would occur if you want to get her out before March 2017 or if she changes her mind again and wants to pay the second installment to purchase the property.

[Tatsujin]

It seems like you are covered then, you got a payment which covers the buyers rental until 2017 so you can leave it alone unless she wants clarification.

[alyx]

Thanks again everyone for these (reassuring) answers

To clarify my position

1) No, I do not want to take her out of the premises as I have a 5 year rent paid in advance as it is

2) If she changes her mind , as in, willing to buy again, I see no problem with that

3) I will not draw a "new" rental contract as I have not receive anyting in proper writing from her (just in case she decides to go for it again, avoiding further confusion and errors in the drawing of the new lease)

Please find enclosed the contract to have a correct view of the situation

Clause 8 of page 2 stipulates the details cited earlier

Edited September 27, 2011 by alyx

[stgrhe]

Alyx, I suppose you used a Thai lawyer to draw up this contract - don't use him/her again as it an extremely poorly worded contract and with many vital clauses missing.

[alyx]

Alyx, I suppose you used a Thai lawyer to draw up this contract - don't use him/her again as it an extremely poorly worded contract and with many vital clauses missing.

Humm..no I have not used anyone

But I appreciate you thought that was a lawyer

But , next time, I will

In the meantime does this wording support my case, is it clear enough?