Disappointed in The Timeshare Store

[BWV Dreamin]

If this is in fact the law in FL( which I would seriously question), this is the perfect example where the seller AND buyer should obtain exclusive representation. Does TSS have a problem representing the seller ONLY if requested?

At The Timeshare Store, Inc.® we actually work as a transaction broker. I don't want to get that term confused with a dual agent. In the state of Florida the housing real estate market is typically handled in the transaction broker manner.

If you come to Florida or contact a real estate company in Florida you should assume the agent is operating as a transaction broker unless they notify you otherwise as stated below.

"As of 2008, the Florida Association of REALTORS® states that all buyers and all sellers, upon contacting a REALTOR®, are to assume the agent is operating as a Transaction Broker, unless they notify you otherwise."

Jason

 

[Sammie]

I hope I don't look too silly asking this question but I am trying to follow the thread and I can't figure what "OP" is short for which probably should be obvious.

For the longest time I thought the "DH" was referring to "Disney Husband" but someone finally told me it is "Dear Husband."

Jason

OP: orginial poster

Basically the OP is the person who starts the thread.

 

[silmarg]

Dean--It is your opinion that it is not ethical for a company to continue to sell to a buyer who changes their mind about purchasing their product when they are canceling in the legal time given to them?

I worked for Disney Vacation Club from 1999 to 2001 and there were many cases where someone was becoming a new owner directly from Disney who had previously bought from Disney and had canceled for some reason. I don't think Disney Vacation Club should turn these buyers away because they canceled once before and I don't think The Timeshare Store, Inc.® should ever turn a buyer away because they canceled once before either.

I might be wrong regarding your opinion but I just wanted to let someone out there who may have bought from The Timeshare Store, Inc.® 5 years ago, 2 years ago or whatever that even though they may have once canceled their purchase they are more than welcome to come back to us and we will try and find you a property.

Jason

If some one gets cold feet and cancels in the 10 day window, that is fine - that is what the rule is intended for. If they wanted to buy at a later time, I would not expect you to turn away their business. I would think the ethics issue would come into play (and I am not sure if this issue come into play in this particular transaction) if I have an accepted offer on a property... continue shopping for more properties get a similar property at a better price... and cancel the contract on the first property.

If the same broker assisted in both transactions, I would call that unethical - assuming the broker knew that the buyer intended to walk away from the first contract once a better replacement was found.

 

[Dean]

If some one gets cold feet and cancels in the 10 day window, that is fine - that is what the rule is intended for. If they wanted to buy at a later time, I would not expect you to turn away their business. I would think the ethics issue would come into play (and I am not sure if this issue come into play in this particular transaction) if I have an accepted offer on a property... continue shopping for more properties get a similar property at a better price... and cancel the contract on the first property.

If the same broker assisted in both transactions, I would call that unethical - assuming the broker knew that the buyer intended to walk away from the first contract once a better replacement was found.

From the first post.

Imagine my surprise when The Timeshare Store contacted me again to report that the buyer was moving on to another contract and they were rolling the earnest money for my sale to the new contract.

We have no way of knowing if the TSS was aware the buyer was continuing to search after they signed the contract, my assumption would be they were not aware until the buyer called them. However, in my view it wouldn't matter, I don't feel they should have allowed it with their participation. There are many things that are legal but not right, to me, this would fall as one of them.

 

[bom_noite]

I do believe it is not a good practice to cont to work with a buyer who simply backs out of a contract even if it is legal.

I am not sure if I agree 100% with that assessment Dean. The TSS (as well as the other company's that specialize in this) needs both Buyers and Sellers to generate sales. By black-balling the Buyer the TSS risks future sales which benefit the TSS and TSS Selling Customers. So, I can see they are forced to walk a tightrope.

But, I do agree with the general premise: The Buyer was the true Villain here!

At this very second I find myself on Day 5 of the Ten Day Right of Rescission period. I am selling 150 BCV to buy 190 OKW. This week I have been looking and seen different OKW contracts that are interesting - and may be a better deal for me!

Regardless, you would never see me back-out. What my rights allow and what is ethical are two very different matters - a deal is a deal!

 

[bom_noite]

If some one gets cold feet and cancels in the 10 day window, that is fine - that is what the rule is intended for.

I actually like what SC has done with their law: 5 Days if buying through a Developer / Timeshare Sales Company and 0 days if being sold through a individual / individuals RE Broker.

Look - we all know why this law was created. Four free tickets and free breakfast if you just listen - merely listen to what I have to say. Five hours later they have your kids locked in a warehouse and you cannot get them back unless you give them a check.

The OP nor the TSS store ever pressured anyone. I do not see the need to protect any buyer in this situation. 2 Days would be a better time period in these types of transactions.

That is my humble opinion!

 

[Dean]

I am not sure if I agree 100% with that assessment Dean. The TSS (as well as the other company's that specialize in this) are in a tough bind in that they must strive to keep both parties happy - that is their business model.

But, I do agree that the Buyer was the true Villain here!

At this very second I find myself on Day 5 of the Ten Day Right of Rescission period. I am selling 150 BCV to buy 190 OKW. This week I have been looking and seen different OKW contracts that are interesting - and may be a better deal for me!

Regardless, you would never see me back-out. What my rights allow and what is ethical are two very different matters - a deal is a deal!

I understand both sides but I believe there are times when principle need to take precedence over the dollars involved, IMO, this is one of those type of examples. Obviously you and TSS disagree, and I can see that. I find your last sentence interesting in that I think there are legit reasons to back out, shopping for multiple options at one time and backing out of one when you find a better deal isn't one of them. Up until you sign, not problem, just like a vehicle purchase. The other component that I don't believe has been addressed directly in this thread is that it's VERY likely that an offer on a new contract was present and accepted prior to this cancellation. If so, I'd have to reverse my previous statement that they did not know. Hopefully they did not know this was going to be the case at the time the first contract was presented/accepted.

Clearly there are legitimate reasons for such rules though I agree with you that they really aren't needed in private resale situations.

 

[jarestel]

There are many things that are legal but not right, to me, this would fall as one of them.

There are any number of threads on these boards lamenting changes to the DVC system, elimination of perks, exclusion of DVC members from free dining, and so on and so on and so on. In practically every instance the lamenter is chastised for not reading the POS and understanding what he/she signed. In essence, whether you understood or agreed with the signed contract, it's still a contract.

So it's a bit ironic that in this instance, signers of a contract with TSS aren't being held to the same standard. If both parties sign and agree to a 10 day recission, then that's the deal. When the buyer backs out within those 10 days, it's within the agreement that both parties signed. I don't see anything unethical with TSS continuing to work with the buyer, since the buyer did nothing wrong, according to the terms of the agreement. As with DVC documents, everyone needs to understand what they sign.

 

[bom_noite]

The other component that I don't believe has been addressed directly in this thread is that it's VERY likely that an offer on a new contract was present and accepted prior to this cancellation.

I do think the TSS may have erred in telling the OP the reason for the cancellation. This from the Original Post: Imagine my surprise when The Timeshare Store contacted me again to report that the buyer was moving on to another contract.......

Why tell the OP? Was it his right to know the reason? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should be praising the TSS for their honesty and full disclosure. Had it been my business I would have................ I really do not know - tough decision. In this business model you walk a very, very tight line.

If it was solely a price issue, as a customer I would have expected the Broker to come back to me (as the Seller) and give me a fair chance to lower my price in order to protect the sale.

But, I have no idea what the Buyer had in mind - so - it is not fair of me to criticize anyones actions.

 

[Dean]

There are any number of threads on these boards lamenting changes to the DVC system, elimination of perks, exclusion of DVC members from free dining, and so on and so on and so on. In practically every instance the lamenter is chastised for not reading the POS and understanding what he/she signed. In essence, whether you understood or agreed with the signed contract, it's still a contract.

So it's a bit ironic that in this instance, signers of a contract with TSS aren't being held to the same standard. If both parties sign and agree to a 10 day recission, then that's the deal. When the buyer backs out within those 10 days, it's within the agreement that both parties signed. I don't see anything unethical with TSS continuing to work with the buyer, since the buyer did nothing wrong, according to the terms of the agreement. As with DVC documents, everyone needs to understand what they sign.

You get no argument from me on either read what you sign or assuming there are implications to those statements included. I'm on record in stating the contract would be applicable in this case if it matches or goes beyond any legal requirements.

My statement of legal but not right is aimed at the process and possible facilitation and to the owner who apparently understood what they were getting into and manipulated the system. As I stated, you'd have to look at specifics to formulated an opinion and we don't have the entire picture here, though I'd suspect we have MOST of the applicable info.

Given the following set of circumstances which MAY or MAY NOT be the full story here:

• Buyer makes offer and Seller accepts.
• Both sign contract and buyer produces ernest money.
• Buyer sees contact they might like better and calls broker about it.
• There are no known issues with the original contract (points wrong, etc)
• Buyer makes new offer on new contract which is delivered by the broker and accepted by the new seller.
• Buyer notifies broker who notifies seller that they are canceling (there is a very formal process that must be followed which includes written cancelation sent from buyer to seller in writing, as I read it, sending it through the broker likely does not satisfy the requirements)
• Broker moves ernest money to new contract (which also may not be a legal way of handling the transaction).

In that exact scenario, I have a problem with both the buyer and the broker even though both are technically legal.

 

[Dean]

I do think the TSS may have erred in telling the OP the reason for the cancellation. This from the Original Post: Imagine my surprise when The Timeshare Store contacted me again to report that the buyer was moving on to another contract.......

Why tell the OP? Was it his right to know the reason? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should be praising the TSS for their honesty and full disclosure. Had it been my business I would have................ I really do not know - tough decision. In this business model you walk a very, very tight line.

If it was solely a price issue, as a customer I would have expected the Broker to come back to me (as the Seller) and give me a fair chance to lower my price in order to protect the sale.

But, I have no idea what the Buyer had in mind - so - it is not fair of me to criticize anyones actions.

In a sense they likely should have just said the buyer was canceling, it would have been simpler but I prefer the more honest approach they took and I applaud that portion.

 

[jarestel]

Given the following set of circumstances which MAY or MAY NOT be the full story here:

• Buyer makes offer and Seller accepts.
• Both sign contract and buyer produces ernest money.
• Buyer sees contact they might like better and calls broker about it.
• There are no known issues with the original contract (points wrong, etc)
• Buyer makes new offer on new contract which is delivered by the broker and accepted by the new seller.
• Buyer notifies broker who notifies seller that they are canceling (there is a very formal process that must be followed which includes written cancelation sent from buyer to seller in writing, as I read it, sending it through the broker likely does not satisfy the requirements)
• Broker moves ernest money to new contract (which also may not be a legal way of handling the transaction).

In that exact scenario, I have a problem with both the buyer and the broker even though both are technically legal.

True, in this case the seller is inconvenienced. But the seller is just as inconvenienced if the buyer cancels for any reason. "I've found a better property" vs "I just lost my job" vs "I changed my mind" are all equally legitimate and produce the same result to the seller - inconvenience. Since the contract doesn't place restrictions on the ability to rescind, other than the time limit, one reason is as valid as another regardless of the inconvenience factor.

Just as buyers need to realize the possibility of ROFR snatching their contract from them, sellers should also be aware that the provisions of the deal don't really kick in until the recission period ends. I suspect this thread will raise that level of awareness which is a good thing.

I have no specific knowledge of this particular transaction, other than what has been shared here, but given that small amount of information, I just don't see anything that would rise to the level of unethical behavior on anyone's part.

 

[Dean]

True, in this case the seller is inconvenienced. But the seller is just as inconvenienced if the buyer cancels for any reason. "I've found a better property" vs "I just lost my job" vs "I changed my mind" are all equally legitimate and produce the same result to the seller - inconvenience. Since the contract doesn't place restrictions on the ability to rescind, other than the time limit, one reason is as valid as another regardless of the inconvenience factor.

Just as buyers need to realize the possibility of ROFR snatching their contract from them, sellers should also be aware that the provisions of the deal don't really kick in until the recission period ends. I suspect this thread will raise that level of awareness which is a good thing.

I have no specific knowledge of this particular transaction, other than what has been shared here, but given that small amount of information, I just don't see anything that would rise to the level of unethical behavior on anyone's part.

Then we disagree because I see the reason and process does make a difference in the appropriateness.

"I've found a better property" vs "I just lost my job" vs "I changed my mind" are all equally legitimate and produce the same result to the seller - inconvenience.

This is specifically where we disagree. While the end result may be the same IF the buyer cancels, behavior that I personally see as appropriate results in fewer cancelations and in this case, LIKELY does not produce a cancelation.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

.......

Why tell the OP? Was it his right to know the reason? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should be praising the TSS for their honesty and full disclosure. Had it been my business I would have................ I really do not know - tough decision. In this business model you walk a very, very tight line.

.

This is where seller and buyer representation come into play. If you are solely representing the SELLER, it is the responsibility of the agent to disclose those facts to the seller. That is why it should not be allowed that one agent represents both seller and buyer. In this case, the agent is representing both, and thus the goal is to facilitate A SALE, not to protect either parties interests.

 

[bom_noite]

This is where seller and buyer representation come into play. If you are solely representing the SELLER, it is the responsibility of the agent to disclose those facts to the seller. That is why it should not be allowed that one agent represents both seller and buyer. In this case, the agent is representing both, and thus the goal is to facilitate A SALE, not to protect either parties interests.

One fact not disclosed to this point: The TSS store, as a Real Esatate Agent has a legal responsibility to present any offer given to them. They have NO choice in the matter. THIS IS THE LAW - and there is no gray area here! If you do that - you lose your license to practice Real Estate.

Regardless - they could have said to the buyer: "You have a right to move on - this is not denied - can we work with the Seller to make everyone happy!" That, to my knowledge was not done.

I was waiting for the TSS to state this - they have not to this point (unless I missed something). I personally think the TSS may have handled this thread all wrong for this. I think that is because of the tight rope they walk 'tween buyer and seller.

 

[jarestel]

Then we disagree because I see the reason and process does make a difference in the appropriateness.

Though we are often in agreement pertaining to discussions of DVC contracts, I guess we will have to disagree on this one then. If nothing was done by either party that violates the contractual agreement, I have no problems. Attempting to interpret contracts as anything more than the rules and responsbilities of the parties involved is a slippery slope at best, and injection of personal morality into the discussion complicates it even more. Which is why contracts exist in the first place, I suppose.

 

[CarolAnnC]

Wouldn't it be discrimination if someone refused to present an offer from an individual who may have cancelled (legally) a prior contract?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

In this situation the agent should have removed himself from presenting another offer made by the buyer. The BROKER needs to present the offer, and thus should have gotten another agent to work with the buyer.

One fact not disclosed to this point: The TSS store, as a Real Esatate Agent has a legal responsibility to present any offer given to them. They have NO choice in the matter. THIS IS THE LAW - and there is no gray area here! If you do that - you lose your license to practice Real Estate.

Regardless - they could have said to the buyer: "You have a right to move on - this is not denied - can we work with the Seller to make everyone happy!" That, to my knowledge was not done.

I was waiting for the TSS to state this - they have not to this point (unless I missed something). I personally think the TSS may have handled this thread all wrong for this. I think that is because of the tight rope they walk 'tween buyer and seller.

 

[bom_noite]

In this situation the agent should have removed himself from presenting another offer made by the buyer. The BROKER needs to present the offer, and thus should have gotten another agent to work with the buyer.

Ok - you are getting a bit past my pay grade (though I could check with my Real Estate Family which includes RE Agents and lawyers): By general law any RE Agent is a "transactional" broker.

If I sell my house it is almost traditional to ask my agent to be a "Sales Agent" - and when I do this they represent me and me alone! I have purchased homes and asked my agent to be a Purchase Broker to represent my interests solely.

I got this from a friend:

Florida law requires that real estate licensees operating as transactional
brokers disclose to buyers and sellers their role and duties in providing a
limited form of representation, as a transaction broker. xxxxxxx
provides to you a limited form of representation that includes
the following duties:
1) Dealing honestly and fairly,
2) Accounting for all funds,
3) Using skill, care, and diligence in the transaction,
4) Disclosing all known facts that materially affect the value of
residential real property and are not observable to buyer,
5) Presenting all offers and counteroffers in a timely manner, unless a
party has previously directed the licensee otherwise in writing.
6) Limited confidentiality, unless waived in writing by a party. This
limited confidentiality will prevent disclosure that the seller will
accept a price less than the asking or listing price, that the buyer will
pay a price greater than the price submitted in a written offer, of the
motivation of any party for selling or buying property, that a seller or
buyer agrees to financing terms other than those offered, or of any
other information requested by a party to remain confidential, and
7) Any additional duties that are entered into by this or by separate
written agreement.
Limited representation means that a buyer or seller is not responsible for the
acts of the licensee. Additionally, parties are giving up their rights to the
undivided loyalty. This aspect of limited representation allows a licensee to
facilitate a real transaction by assisting both the buyer and the seller, but a
licensee will not work to represent one party to the detriment of the other
party when acting as a transaction broker to both parties.

In the case of the TSS (or their competitors) they do not declare and are a transactional broker by de facto (according to Fla Law) unless asked otherwise by either party.

 

[Jason@dvcstore]

If this is in fact the law in FL( which I would seriously question), this is the perfect example where the seller AND buyer should obtain exclusive representation. Does TSS have a problem representing the seller ONLY if requested?

The Timeshare Store, Inc.® is going to continue to operate as a transaction broker.

Jason