Being Screwed By Samui Developer

[norrona]

_{as a previous developer in Thailand myself I can see where they are coming from, you purchased in a estate so in a sense they have already gone to the bother of dividing the land into seperate titles and sold them at affordable sized plots they are there to make money same as anyone who goes to work or invests time/money.}

_{the build cost is where they were also going to make money out of you, they delayed that due to economic crisis and political troubles which you have stated and now they are good and ready to proceed in constructing and finishing the development, they do not want 1 house built this year and maybe 2 or 3 the next and so on as that makes the first person to finish building got to live on a construction site till everyone else gets their arse in gear.}

_{when you purchased your land you didn't just buy into a piece of dirt, you bought into a development....they now see someone like you who doesn't want to build as an idle investor who is getting in their way of progress....}

_{as spelt out to you previously....take the money being offered, it's a good deal.}

_{Or dig your heels in and get ready for court and possibly an investigation as to how (if you're not Thai) can you own this land?}

[churchill]

IMO .. Take the cash ....

Samui land prices have dropped in the last 5 years .. so if you are just about getting your initial investment back , you are OK ..

Presumably you have also gained via currency exchange so in effect probably gained ?

Perhaps they have ideas for another development .. so why not offer to accept if they don't deduct 5%...

[Rancid]

Technically you broke the contact, even if martians had landed nect door it doesn't change that. Take the money and move on, you knew what the contract said. They either don't want the empty blocks making the estate look like a losing proposition or they think they can make a profit building themselves, either way...take the money, a contract is a contract whether in Thailand or anywhere else in this case.

[tinfoilhat]

Well certianly all I can comment on is what you tell me ....... I am happy to give you advice with more information that may put things in your favor.

My guess is you are confused about the 3 years ....... It would be highly unlikely that a lawyer would allow you to simply wait 4 years or 10 years and then have their recourse expire , it may be vauge to you but not to a lawyer in fact the "spirit of the contract" would render the expiry thing moot without a clear explanation that that as the case ...... the vauge part is to their advantage because it's obvious enough what the intention is.

Here is the specific clause in question:

8.3 In the event that the Purchaser fails to comply with the time limitations set out in this clause, the Seller has the right to buy back the Land at the same value as well as the Seller is entitled to charge an interest rate of 5% per year per Land for a period of three (3) years.

So as per the above, the clause was in there and at the time, 2005 when Samui was booming there was no doubt in my mind that I would have built and so I did fail in that clause and therefore what they said would have been reasonable in 2009.

They told me and told other owners that they weren't going to inforce that because of the coup, the financial crisis etc. 70% of the owners are in the same boat. Given (sadly not in writing) they told us they weren't enforcing this clause and now almost 4 years later they are doing so seems potentially not in sync with the contract.

He says, the seller has the right to buy the land back for a period of 3 years. Any way you look at this, the 3 years have expired.

From a marketing perspective, does it make sense for a developer try to invoke a clause like this if he is going to continue (which he is) to be a developer on Samui? All somebody will have to do (in future) is google this guys name and the internet will show that he's just "by many people's perspective" operated in a manner that does not have his investor's interests at heart. Bad publicity.

looks to me like you are grasping at straws, you are lucky the clause specifies 3 years, and you have had that, and another 3 years grace. but for that clause you could be liable for 6 years at 5%. And look at the clause again, it does not say the seller has only three years to buy the land back, it says the seller has a right to 3 years interest.

you are in default, and you have had 3 years grace. read it as many times as you want, you blew it.

[johnnyk]

Well certianly all I can comment on is what you tell me ....... I am happy to give you advice with more information that may put things in your favor.

My guess is you are confused about the 3 years ....... It would be highly unlikely that a lawyer would allow you to simply wait 4 years or 10 years and then have their recourse expire , it may be vauge to you but not to a lawyer in fact the "spirit of the contract" would render the expiry thing moot without a clear explanation that that as the case ...... the vauge part is to their advantage because it's obvious enough what the intention is.

Here is the specific clause in question:

8.3 In the event that the Purchaser fails to comply with the time limitations set out in this clause, the Seller has the right to buy back the Land at the same value as well as the Seller is entitled to charge an interest rate of 5% per year per Land for a period of three (3) years.

So as per the above, the clause was in there and at the time, 2005 when Samui was booming there was no doubt in my mind that I would have built and so I did fail in that clause and therefore what they said would have been reasonable in 2009.

They told me and told other owners that they weren't going to inforce that because of the coup, the financial crisis etc. 70% of the owners are in the same boat. Given (sadly not in writing) they told us they weren't enforcing this clause and now almost 4 years later they are doing so seems potentially not in sync with the contract.

He says, the seller has the right to buy the land back for a period of 3 years. Any way you look at this, the 3 years have expired.

From a marketing perspective, does it make sense for a developer try to invoke a clause like this if he is going to continue (which he is) to be a developer on Samui? All somebody will have to do (in future) is google this guys name and the internet will show that he's just "by many people's perspective" operated in a manner that does not have his investor's interests at heart. Bad publicity.

I read this as the seller has the right to charge 5% a year for three years, in other words he can charge 15%.

I don't see anything about the seller having to buy it back within 3 years other than "He says..." Is that the contract or an opinion? To me it looks like the seller can wait as long as he wants but can only charge 5%/year for 3 years and that's all. Just my 2 satang.

It looks like the FX rates are in OP's favour and he can recoup his money. If so, take it!

Edited August 29, 2012 by johnnyk

[MrRealDeal]

I'm sorry but it's not vauge at all ...... it says the seller can buy back the land STOP and AS WELL can charge intrest ..... those are 2 distinct and seperate parts , for example they could waive or not enforce the second part , It might be 2 years or 10 years but the buying back the land is seperated by the "as well" part which means in addition to.

It's perfectly clear they have the right to buy back the land ..... AS WELL as charge intrest for 3 years if they so chose.

Sorry you don't like it but that really is what it is saying.

What you wish it said was ...... The seller has the right to buy back the land for a period of 3 years as well as charge intrest of 5 percent per year.

Unfortunatly thats not what it says. Once again I don't know why you think any sensible person would make a clause that you are required to build and then accidently allow their recourse for not doing that expire at the very time they could enforce the contract ...... In reality if you had it your way you actually had 4 years before they could do anything , 1 year to start and 3 more to finish , if I remember the beginning correctly , 3 if I am mistaken , so you are reading the contract as though on the very day they could enforce their end of the contract (or 1 year prior) it would expire.

I understand you are having a hard time reading it correctly but ask yourself who would say: you have 4 years to build and if you dont this is the penalty, but the time to enforce it is 3 years and after that we cant do anything about it. Obviously no one would do that on purpose so you have to ask yourself did their lawyers make some big mistake or are you misreading it ? More importantly would any sensible Judge intrepret it to mean their recorse runs out one year before they can enforce it ?

Lastly they never changed the contract , they just didn't enforce it for a period of time , thats not a defense for your failure , but more inportantly and this is really what kills you , since the contract wasn't changed it doesn't even matter what they told you because they sold those contracts to a new party who is not liable for any verbal comments made by the old party. It's in perfect sync with the actuall contract , it's not in sync with the verbal comment made by people who are no longer a party to the contract ....... Your only actuall recourse would be to sue the people who made the verbal statements you relyed on that cost you money.

In short you are looking at the wrong party as the one who is harming you , unfortunatly this is not so uncommon for 1 party to make a contract add some verbal comments , sell the company to a friend who then says those comments are not his problem because he didnt make them. From a Legal standpoint they are correct. You would not win a lawsuit against party 1 either because his defence would be he said HE would not enforce that part of the contract , he never claimed he would not sell the company and your contracts along with it, and the new buyer would not enforce it.

I can see how you might think they pulled one over on you , but no Judge would allow you to prevail because had it not been for you not fulfilling your end of the contract you would not be complaining, which carrys more weight in a court than how the other party managed to enforce their part of the contract. You would be complaining about how they went about enforcing the contract not that you failed to live up to the contract. It's the old yes I did something wrong but the other guy did something wrong as well so what I did shouldnt matter ..... that never flys well in court and the party who made the initial mistake is almost always found at fault the contract enforced and the Judge tells the other guy to get his act together a little better next time.

What Party 1 would say is ...... I told them I wasn't enforcing the contract at that time , not that I was giving my right to enforce it away permanantly , and their is nothing you all could say because the only way to recind a part of a written contract is with a new written contract ..... that you don't have. Courts could care less what verbal comments were made with the presence of a written document.

Your Legal theory is that verbal comments made changed the written contract , the only way to win that argument is for the other party to agree , which they won't , Otherwise the Judge says it's a he said she said and I am not making my decision based on anything but the written evdence, because the verbal argument is a wash therfore the written contract is all that is left standing.

Edited August 29, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[MrRealDeal]

As far as sueing the person who made the verbal statements you relyed on ....... You would first have to sue the correct party for the correct reason , You would want to sue the company the agent was working for ..... which no doubt no longer exists. So then you would have to sue the agent personally who would need assets to make it worth your while , At that point you would have to prove Fraud as opposed to a lower standard for the company where a lower standard would suffice.

You would have to prove that he made those statements with prior knowledge that he was going to sell the company AND the new company would enforce the contract to prove the statements were fradulent. Thats pretty hard to prove without the new company admitting that they were part of the fraud , otherwise you haven't proved he made the statements knowing they were false.

So the problem becomes not only do you have to prove he made the statements that changed the contract, but you also have to prove he did it with aforethought and malice with the intention of defrauding you by selling the company to another party , all that is almost impossible without people admitting it because otherwise you have no proof , just assumptions.

[autan]

My advise is take the money they are offering you, wipe the egg off your face and start again.

From what I have heard, your lucky its 5% per year.

[NevadaInThailand]

Thanks for your comments people.

The focus of most comments was on the clause that states the 3 year issue. I have taken the contract to a Thai lawyer for their thoughts.

Two things that didn't get covered here because I didn't list them. 1 is that Samui Estates also violated provisions in the contract. The type of home allowed to be built has a maximum height of 6 meters as stated in the contract, they have allowed homes of 7.5 meter heights to be built. Also the villas had to be Thai/Balinese style and they then allowed massive flat concrete and glass homes to be built. These are clear violations of the contract.

The 2nd issue that nobody commented on is the marketing side of things. Can a developer, per his contract, rightfully force his customers to sell his land back at the 15% discounted price and still maintain a business attracting new customers for his next developments?

I don't mean "can he do it legally?" I mean can he do it and still have clients in the future? If future clients find out this is what he is forcing his clients to do, would they want to deal with him?

I realize most commenters have said, "take the money and count myself lucky and the exchange has gone in my favor etc etc". However, I would like to keep this land, I would leave the money in Thailand anyway if I did sell it because I have another business interest in Thailand that I would shift the money to so I really don't gain the exchange spread. My point here is, I would appreciate comments to the 2 points I just raised and particularly to the 2nd point. The marketing and potential bad publicity for the developer, wouldn't this be marketing suicide for the developer?

[ggold]

Thanks for your comments people.

The focus of most comments was on the clause that states the 3 year issue. I have taken the contract to a Thai lawyer for their thoughts.

Two things that didn't get covered here because I didn't list them. 1 is that Samui Estates also violated provisions in the contract. The type of home allowed to be built has a maximum height of 6 meters as stated in the contract, they have allowed homes of 7.5 meter heights to be built. Also the villas had to be Thai/Balinese style and they then allowed massive flat concrete and glass homes to be built. These are clear violations of the contract.

The 2nd issue that nobody commented on is the marketing side of things. Can a developer, per his contract, rightfully force his customers to sell his land back at the 15% discounted price and still maintain a business attracting new customers for his next developments?

I don't mean "can he do it legally?" I mean can he do it and still have clients in the future? If future clients find out this is what he is forcing his clients to do, would they want to deal with him?

I realize most commenters have said, "take the money and count myself lucky and the exchange has gone in my favor etc etc". However, I would like to keep this land, I would leave the money in Thailand anyway if I did sell it because I have another business interest in Thailand that I would shift the money to so I really don't gain the exchange spread. My point here is, I would appreciate comments to the 2 points I just raised and particularly to the 2nd point. The marketing and potential bad publicity for the developer, wouldn't this be marketing suicide for the developer?

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

With respects, You signed the contract, if you were not happy with the 5% per annum for 3 years clause why did you sign the contract. MORALITY has nothing to do with it. Which s what you are really asking!

It seem to me that this was a business oppertunity for you, in the belief that you would sell it at a profit once built. You can't have it both ways. Business is business, if your in business you should know that.

[NevadaInThailand]

Thanks for your comments people.

The focus of most comments was on the clause that states the 3 year issue. I have taken the contract to a Thai lawyer for their thoughts.

Two things that didn't get covered here because I didn't list them. 1 is that Samui Estates also violated provisions in the contract. The type of home allowed to be built has a maximum height of 6 meters as stated in the contract, they have allowed homes of 7.5 meter heights to be built. Also the villas had to be Thai/Balinese style and they then allowed massive flat concrete and glass homes to be built. These are clear violations of the contract.

The 2nd issue that nobody commented on is the marketing side of things. Can a developer, per his contract, rightfully force his customers to sell his land back at the 15% discounted price and still maintain a business attracting new customers for his next developments?

I don't mean "can he do it legally?" I mean can he do it and still have clients in the future? If future clients find out this is what he is forcing his clients to do, would they want to deal with him?

I realize most commenters have said, "take the money and count myself lucky and the exchange has gone in my favor etc etc". However, I would like to keep this land, I would leave the money in Thailand anyway if I did sell it because I have another business interest in Thailand that I would shift the money to so I really don't gain the exchange spread. My point here is, I would appreciate comments to the 2 points I just raised and particularly to the 2nd point. The marketing and potential bad publicity for the developer, wouldn't this be marketing suicide for the developer?

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

With respects, You signed the contract, if you were not happy with the 5% per annum for 3 years clause why did you sign the contract. MORALITY has nothing to do with it. Which s what you are really asking!

It seem to me that this was a business oppertunity for you, in the belief that you would sell it at a profit once built. You can't have it both ways. Business is business, if your in business you should know that.

With respect. Indeed the point you just made has been covered multiple times already. This is Thai Visa and posters are welcomed to post whatever they like but the post you just responded to was attempting to move beyond the original and onto another related issue.

[ggold]

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

I would also suggest that what ever the developer allowed or chose to ignore as far as the size and type of building built, What does that have to do with your contract. Each contract is separate. The developer could in theory force the owners to knock down buildings that go against the contract.

As others have said you are luck to be getting some of your money back, do you really want to drag it out and incure more expense by contesting something you signed.

Learn from it, and next time stick to the contract, or don't sign it.

[ggold]

Thanks for your comments people.

The focus of most comments was on the clause that states the 3 year issue. I have taken the contract to a Thai lawyer for their thoughts.

Two things that didn't get covered here because I didn't list them. 1 is that Samui Estates also violated provisions in the contract. The type of home allowed to be built has a maximum height of 6 meters as stated in the contract, they have allowed homes of 7.5 meter heights to be built. Also the villas had to be Thai/Balinese style and they then allowed massive flat concrete and glass homes to be built. These are clear violations of the contract.

The 2nd issue that nobody commented on is the marketing side of things. Can a developer, per his contract, rightfully force his customers to sell his land back at the 15% discounted price and still maintain a business attracting new customers for his next developments?

I don't mean "can he do it legally?" I mean can he do it and still have clients in the future? If future clients find out this is what he is forcing his clients to do, would they want to deal with him?

I realize most commenters have said, "take the money and count myself lucky and the exchange has gone in my favor etc etc". However, I would like to keep this land, I would leave the money in Thailand anyway if I did sell it because I have another business interest in Thailand that I would shift the money to so I really don't gain the exchange spread. My point here is, I would appreciate comments to the 2 points I just raised and particularly to the 2nd point. The marketing and potential bad publicity for the developer, wouldn't this be marketing suicide for the developer?

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

With respects, You signed the contract, if you were not happy with the 5% per annum for 3 years clause why did you sign the contract. MORALITY has nothing to do with it. Which s what you are really asking!

It seem to me that this was a business oppertunity for you, in the belief that you would sell it at a profit once built. You can't have it both ways. Business is business, if your in business you should know that.

With respect. Indeed the point you just made has been covered multiple times already. This is Thai Visa and posters are welcomed to post whatever they like but the post you just responded to was attempting to move beyond the original and onto another related issue.

I'm sorry, I was answering the OP's second point which had not been covered. I realise that ultimately they all lead to the same answer, it's in the contract!

Edit: My comment about morality was an attempt to asnwer the OP's question about bad business practices etc which is what IMO the second point is really about.

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

Edited August 30, 2012 by ggold

[NevadaInThailand]

Actually I'm not asking about morality at all. I'm asking if the developer is really thinking this through. He is going to have 70% of his clients in this development very pissed off and that is not good for a developer's reputation. Rightly or wrongly all the owners don't want this clause to kick in and likely all feel it is unfair.

Further the purpose of the clause was to stop an owner from not completing and thus having an incomplete development. The situation has changed, 70% of the owners didn't build for many reasons, coup, recession, red shirts etc. The purpose of this clause was not for the developer to snatch back 70% of the development years later. That was not at all the purpose and intent of the clause.

The point I'm making here is the bad publicity for the developer if he follows the contract literally and takes all our lands back.

The internet is a good and bad thing. Stuff that goes out there is there forever and it comes up in search engines.

[NevadaInThailand]

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

I would also suggest that what ever the developer allowed or chose to ignore as far as the size and type of building built, What does that have to do with your contract. Each contract is separate. The developer could in theory force the owners to knock down buildings that go against the contract.

My point about the size and style of buildings is that it is the same contract as the one with the clause we have been discussing. There is a clause which the developer has violated a number of times. It is stated, the building MUST be not greater than 6 meters in height and MUST be Thai/Balinese style. The plans for the villas have to be approved by the Developer. The developer let those houses be built knowing full well, they didn't conform to the clauses in the contract.

[dave111223]

There is contract in black & white clearly stating the agreement, the developer has every right to enforce the contract.

Your arguments are getting sillier and sillier....now saying that because the developer didn't enforce a height limit on someone else contract this somehow nullifies your contract...seriously <deleted>.

I would take the 5.1M cash and run, especially when you legally can't even own the land in the first place...an others have said the exchange rate will probably even out the lose for you a bit.

[steveromagnino]

It is clear to me and others that the contract says the developer can force you to sell it back him and (fortunately for you) there is a cap of a maximum of 5% X 3 years or 15% penalty on how much you will receive.

You raise

1. Samui Estates also violated provisions in the contract. ...maximum height of 6 meters ...., they have allowed homes of 7.5 meter heights ....Also the villas had to be Thai/Balinese style and they then allowed massive flat concrete and glass homes to be built.

This would be a civil case unrelated to your current issue, and you would need to first of all prove that both of these are the case and that Samui Estates were directly responsible for these two factors and you suffered some sort of damage as a result and claim on that damage...can you imagine how hard this would be given you don't live there and second that they could just say ok we will rectify or we asked a majority who said they were ok with Thai/balinese style or get some expert to claim it IS Thai/balinese style or claim promissory estoppel (you allowed them to go ahead as you see now, and did nothing then, so you cannot claim now) or that the buildings aren't finished yet or that the extra height is temporary or that the plans they approved were not what was actually built and they were not aware of this and therefore it is the contractor you need to sue etc etc. At a guess, persuing them would be a legal cost of at least 100,000b and at least 3-4 court appearances with translators etc and the likelihood of the judge pushing you both to settle. If they were able to show (which they probably can) that they approved a set of plans different to what was built, then you will need to sue your neighbours one by one. Damages you could claim (since you cannot show what you have lost as a result) would be negligible assuming you even were able to win. Perhaps maybe you could use as leverage (which I think is what you are getting at) but given the route to court no sane developer would worry about this threat as they know you would have to be crazy to invest so much effort for a settlement of 500b or something.

2. Can a developer, per his contract, rightfully force his customers to sell his land back at the 15% discounted price and still maintain a business attracting new customers for his next developments?

Absolutely. He probably won't be able to sell to you or your friends, but can still sell to almost anyone else. lest you think it a good idea to slag him off online, be aware libel laws in Thailand are quite strict and can favour the plaintiff; you are already pushing it in this thread. Again, nothing you can do.

As others say, the market has slumped there. thank your lucky stars you are walking away with 85% of what you paid, and not a house which is worth 50% of what you invested and no buyers around - it could be a bunch worse. Plenty of other assets around these days worth way less than what they were in 2005, flick your cash in those.

If you have the Thai contract, please post the relevant clauses, I am happy to look at it on an all care no responsbility basis, but for me seems to be pretty clear and not far from what other property contracts might have; you buy and agree to build, the developer can invoke buy back clause and the longer it goes on the less money you get (but capped at 85% of what you paid).

Edited August 30, 2012 by steveromagnino

[steveromagnino]

I'm asking if the developer is really thinking this through. He is going to have 70% of his clients in this development very pissed off and that is not good for a developer's reputation.

Further the purpose of the clause was to stop an owner from not completing and thus having an incomplete development. The situation has changed, 70% of the owners didn't build for many reasons, coup, recession, red shirts etc. The purpose of this clause was not for the developer to snatch back 70% of the development years later. That was not at all the purpose and intent of the clause.

I am not willing to intepret the point of the clause other than to say the developer is a business and they make money selling land and complete houses.

You and 70% of the development are not willing to complete houses. The developer may or may not have other plots they cannot sell due to you not completing; are there other clauses in the contract which states what will happen if the developer fails to complete all the houses within a certain period of time?

The market has changed, and perhaps the developer sees there is a chance to finally complete the development. Perhaps other buyers are more than happy to sell to him, we don't know from what you have said.

Real estate is not an industry attracting the people of highest morals anyhow.

What would you have him do, sit around and wait 20 years for you to decide what you want to do?

If you want to reach a settlement, get in touch with a lawyer and put forward an offer. But really he has all the power right now and if you settle, is that going to unwind the various things you have said about him in this thread?

[Benjie]

Who has the Chanote? If you have it in your (or a company's) possession it's all Moot.

Else you have to choose to take the money or perhaps offer them the difference and keep the land (and build on it).

[MrRealDeal]

My guess is your once again missreading the contract ..... It probabbly actually says the houses must be built in such and such a way unless you are approved for something different ..... You are thinking YOU have the power to complain about the houses but in all likelyhood that part is one sided meaning you have to do what they want but they don't have to build ony 6 M or Thai style , only that you have to unless approved for something else.

You are not seeming to hear what we are saying so next time you need to have a Lawyer read the contract to you line by line and explain in detail what it really menas not what you think it means.

Your main problem is you don't seem to understand the contract is for the benefit of the developer not for the benefit of you. They make contracts to bind YOU into what THEY want not to bind themselves into what you want or what might be good for you.

Edited August 30, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[NevadaInThailand]

My guess is your once again missreading the contract ..... It probabbly actually says the houses must be built in such and such a way unless you are approved for something different ..... You are thinking YOU have the power to complain about the houses but in all likelyhood that part is one sided meaning you have to do what they want but they don't have to build ony 6 M or Thai style , only that you have to unless approved for something else.

You are not seeming to hear what we are saying so next time you need to have a Lawyer read the contract to you line by line and explain in detail what it really menas not what you think it means.

Your main problem is you don't seem to understand the contract is for the benefit of the developer not for the benefit of you. They make contracts to bind YOU into what THEY want not to bind themselves into what you want or what might be good for you.

As I've said, my contract is with my Thai lawyer now so I'll let him pick it up from here.

Thanks to all for the input, even if didn't get much lovin' here

[johnnyk]

With regard to "verbal comments", the late Samuel Goldwyn said, "Verbal agreements are worth the paer they are written on."

[johnnyk]

Actually I'm not asking about morality at all. I'm asking if the developer is really thinking this through. He is going to have 70% of his clients in this development very pissed off and that is not good for a developer's reputation. Rightly or wrongly all the owners don't want this clause to kick in and likely all feel it is unfair.

Further the purpose of the clause was to stop an owner from not completing and thus having an incomplete development. The situation has changed, 70% of the owners didn't build for many reasons, coup, recession, red shirts etc. The purpose of this clause was not for the developer to snatch back 70% of the development years later. That was not at all the purpose and intent of the clause.

The point I'm making here is the bad publicity for the developer if he follows the contract literally and takes all our lands back.

The internet is a good and bad thing. Stuff that goes out there is there forever and it comes up in search engines.

TiT. The developer may not give a dam_n what a few falangs think. If he enforces the contract and you don't like it he can flip the coin and simply say the falang(s) broke the contract. He doesn't need to say anything else. Besides he can change the name of his company pretty quickly. You will get your money back so what are you crabbing about? The developer wants to move on, do you? Or do you plan to wait 10 more years to build. As for houses built higher, he has the power of approval and maybe he did approve them.

Take your money and be thankful, others have not been so lucky.

Edited August 31, 2012 by johnnyk

[bbradsby]

...

I realize most commenters have said, "take the money and count myself lucky and the exchange has gone in my favor etc etc". However, I would like to keep this land, I would leave the money in Thailand anyway if I did sell it because I have another business interest in Thailand that I would shift the money to so I really don't gain the exchange spread. My point here is, I would appreciate comments to the 2 points I just raised and particularly to the 2nd point. The marketing and potential bad publicity for the developer, wouldn't this be marketing suicide for the developer?

OK, you want to keep the property. At this point, time is not on your side. Review the contract as neutrally as you can, or better, confer with competent Thai legal counsel to advise whether merely commencing construction will stave off their right to take back the property. If so, pull a fast permit on a basic set of plans and drive your first pile or dig your first foundation hole next week. The builder can sign for, pay for and pull the permit. You wouldn't have to leave home. PM me if you require assistance with the design & build part of it.

[nahkit]

Actually I'm not asking about morality at all. I'm asking if the developer is really thinking this through. He is going to have 70% of his clients in this development very pissed off and that is not good for a developer's reputation. Rightly or wrongly all the owners don't want this clause to kick in and likely all feel it is unfair.

Further the purpose of the clause was to stop an owner from not completing and thus having an incomplete development. The situation has changed, 70% of the owners didn't build for many reasons, coup, recession, red shirts etc. The purpose of this clause was not for the developer to snatch back 70% of the development years later. That was not at all the purpose and intent of the clause.

The point I'm making here is the bad publicity for the developer if he follows the contract literally and takes all our lands back.

The internet is a good and bad thing. Stuff that goes out there is there forever and it comes up in search engines.

Try reading again what you have written above "the purpose of the clause was to stop an owner from not completing and thus having an incomplete development".

Isn't that exactly what you have done? You haven't completed and now they have a project that is 70% incomplete so the owner is exercising his right to buy it back and can then either find someone who will buy and build a home or build one there himself.

How about the 30% who kept their side of the bargain and now have to live next to a bunch of empty plots?

You say the purpose of the clause wasn't to snatch back the development years later, so what was the purpose of the clause? Surely the purpose of the clause was to stop speculators from buying up plots and then leaving them vacant for years, to the detriment of the other home owners? Note I say "home owners" not "land owners".

Perhaps the developer could have handled it better, maybe got in touch and advised you that he was going to exercise his right to buy-back if you didn't build within the next three months but the fact is he had no obligation to do so.

I have a home on a project thats less than 20% occupied, the unoccupied plots are all untended and overgrown and make the place look like a rubbish tip. Oh how I wish for a developer that would force the other owners to build and turn it into a nice place to live.

A developer actually enforcing the rules, bad publicity? I dont think so.

[cheeryble]

Further to my situation. The contract is such that they could buy it back for a period of 3 years. Those 3 years expired almost 4 years ago. The way the contract is worded is very vague and open to interpretation.

Dare one suggest you shouldn't have signed a contract if it is indeed vague

There are also a number of issues Samui Estates did not adhere to in the contract as well. Again I can provide some details.

I have noticed it's very common that suddenly little things that weren't a problem are brought up as justifications.

Seems to me when the "crash" happened you and other buyers wanted them to take the downside so didn't fulfil and left them with a piece of dirt instead of an estate.

Now prices are back up you've flipped?

Edited September 2, 2012 by cheeryble

[Tanaka]

First, it is not a question of paying 15% for three years, it is 5% a year making the remainder 5.144.250B not 5.100.000.

Second the OP has a contract with Samui Estates and now he is threatened by another company, Thailand Estates. With whom he does not have had any previous contacts or contracts.

If you want to keep this land, you need to engage a decent property lawyer here quickly.

[cheeryble]

.

Edited September 2, 2012 by cheeryble

[beamer]

Any update ? This is an interesting post

[utalkin2me]

My advice is to just bend over and get ready to take it hard.