Problem with resale company?

[AJA]

For example, I had a deal on a BLT contract for $79 a point. When my broker went back to the seller to ask him to bank the 2011 points, he said that he would but he wanted $80 per point. Is that acting in bad faith or just realizing that the 79 number was unappealing and that somehow he could feel better about 80?

I do think in the OP's case it has a lot more to do with the seller than the broker.

In a case like this one above that is a seller I would stay away from, whats to keep them from thinking 80 pp is not enough and wanting 85, then a few days later thinking 85 isn't enough and wanting 90 (BTW none of those numbers are too high for the perfect BLT contract IMO) if the seller is a game changer so very early in the process I personally wouldn't want to work with them. That has the potential to be a total waste of time if the seller doesn't know exactly what they want.

I'm not sure what the broker could do though? Besides maybe suggesting to the seller it would be in their best interest to reevaluate the exact number they are looking for? They can't make them though kwim?

It is strange that in the OP's case it was the exact same amount mentioned to them earlier by the broker, maybe the seller tried the exact same thing with a previous buyer? Maybe the broker had an idea of what was going to come?

 

[rock_doctor]

I am curious as to whether anyone has had problems with the resale company coming back for a higher price after they already informed you that the seller had accepted your offer and took all of your information to begin putting together the contract.

I am frustrated that we were told the seller accepted and the company took all info and did the confirmation with Disney regarding the points on the contract. The agent did tell me that he/she thought my offer was a few dollars per point lower than what he/she considered to be a "safe number." Later I was informed that the seller must have misunderstood the offer and wanted $XX per point instead (which coincidentally was the exact price per point that the agent gave me as the "safe number").

Has anyone else had this experience?

Yea one did it to me last week. Said thanks but no thanks and moved on to another resale company that had a contract with more points and $2 cheaper pp then the first wanted. It does happen, they find out they owe more money then they thought or had thought about it and decided it wasn't a good deal for them. That is the way it is, the resale company is working in the best interest of the seller (what they are supposed to do). Just move on to another contract. There are tons out there, keep looking you will find what you want. Good luck.

 

[ELMC]

Well, for starters, our offer was at their asking price. They agreed, we sent a deposit, the contract went to, and passed, ROFR, and then the broker couldn't get them to sign the closing documents

There were a lot of other issues I won't go into, but the Argentinian gentleman selling the contract was clearly not dealing in good faith with the broker...or anyone else, for that matter.

It all worked out fine for us. Within a week, we had a great contract for a little less and he was busy answering his wife's question, "WHAT Disney Vacation Club timeshare???"

Thanks for the info. Yes, that does seem like a very clear example of not acting in good faith, and this is a big difference from someone coming back the next day with a little remorse asking a few dollars more. Which, although undesirable, is not unforgivable, IMO.

For example, I had a deal on a BLT contract for $79 a point. When my broker went back to the seller to ask him to bank the 2011 points, he said that he would but he wanted $80 per point. Is that acting in bad faith or just realizing that the 79 number was unappealing and that somehow he could feel better about 80?

In a case like this one above that is a seller I would stay away from, whats to keep them from thinking 80 pp is not enough and wanting 85, then a few days later thinking 85 isn't enough and wanting 90 (BTW none of those numbers are too high for the perfect BLT contract IMO) if the seller is a game changer so very early in the process I personally wouldn't want to work with them. That has the potential to be a total waste of time if the seller doesn't know exactly what they want.

Believe me, I thought about it, because it was a warning sign. But it was the perfect contract. 100 points, for that price and it had 2010, 2011 and 2012 points. It was too good to pass up. In the end, the asking for a dollar more was a sign of being wishy washy and not acting in bad faith. The seller took two weeks to sign contracts and a few weeks to return the closing documents on the back end. But all in all, he followed through and the deal went down. But I agree with what you said, and if he changed the numbers once more I probably would have walked.

 

[bom_noite]

Yeah, I would question the Broker too at this point. I would never use that Broker again and I would let them know this.

I tend to agree with this statement. And, would say if I was a Broker I would have said to the Seller: No Conch Chowder for you!

I have been through 4 different buy / sell cycles on homes. I was young when I first started out and asked for stupid things - and - was scolded by the Agent: "I am entitled to take your bids / demands to the buyers / sellers - but - I would strongly discourage you to do that!" I look back on it - the Agent was 100% correct - I was 100% wrong!

If I was the buyer: Simply walk away! There are SOOOOOO Many DVC properties for sale - another will be around. Walk away knowing the property will sit for another year or so - and - being once burnt the Broker will not be too eager to steer anyone to said contract. May even dump them after a certain period (which I believe is the brokers right?).

I also know this market is way different then it used to be for brokers - it is much tougher to give a stern lecture now then it was in 1986, 1996 or 2006.

If you are forgiving - I would have a frank Q&A with the broker and question them about what happened - and - ask them point blank: "Willing to trust you one more time - you tell me why I should?". The true and honest answer is most likely: "Was out of our control - and I cannot legally tell you what discussions went on with the buyer.....".

You might call other brokers and ask them: What is your policy when this occurs? If the response by another broker is: "They are idiots......", then, I personally don't like that response (so, everyone reselling DVC is an idiot except you? What have you done in the past - you know it has happened to you also?). The point is: Ask enough questions and I think you will get a true level of confidence in the person/company you are dealing with.

I have not seriously looked at the resale market in over 2 years. But, in 2010 we did a Buy/Sell: It took us 10 or 11 months to sell (a coveted) BCV contract with 150 points, that had a desired Dec Use Year and a price per point that was consistently lower then any other rival contract. TEN MONTHS!!!!!!!!!! The winning bid was the FIRST BID!

Upon the agreement of our sale, we made a bid and purchased a 190 point OKW contract - that took 3 days to finalize a "Contingent" deal.

This is a buyers market - and I believe you have options.

 

[Dean]

Yeah, I would question the Broker too at this point. I would never use that Broker again and I would let them know this.

I simply raise the possibility. Odds are in this exact situation it's likely just the seller being difficult. However, when a broker continues to work with an unscrupulous seller after they have demonstrated their true colors, the broker has condoned the behavior. Backing out of a written contract (buyer or seller) would fall into such a characterization in my book. I realize that legally there are legal options but that doesn't make them right, reasonable or ethical. IMO there is a major difference between retail and resale in this regard because a retail buyer is often not educated and are "sold" something while a seller or resale buyer is expected to have a certain amount of knowledge about the process and expectations.

If a seller changes their mind, what is the broker supposed to do? Just pretend everything is fine and have everything blow up at closing?

It depends on the specifics to a degree, but excluding that seller from the company is what should happen in some of these situations.

I would not criticize the broker without evidence of misconduct -- and if you get that, you owe it to all of us to report the broker to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

That's why I raised questions but didn't make blanket statements. We don't have all the facts for most of the situations we discuss because we have one side of the story and often only part of that.

That said, when this happened to me years ago, my broker told me flat out they would NOT pay the increased amount (and of course, I didn't).

In addition, that broker (The Timeshare Store) refused to relist the contract because they did not feel the seller was acting in good faith. To me, that's ethical, professional conduct on the part of the broker.

I agree, that's the approach that should occur in that situation. However, we've seen similar circumstances since where the same commitment didn't seem to be present.

I see what you are saying, and believe me, I'm not here to defend sellers who make a deal and then go back asking for more money. But I don't see how this is any different than a seller backing out during the 10 day cooling off period. I think where we differ is our opinion of what point we think the binding commitment has been made. From your comment above, it seems that you feel that it is upon the verbal acceptance of an offer. But legally speaking, sellers have much more time past this point to change their mind.

As I stated above, there is a difference in legal and ethical in this situation. For resale, I would say the same for a buyer backing out. There is not legal option for a seller backing out once a binding contract is in place.

As for the broker, personally I would cut them some slack. Their job is to make sure the deal happens and the seller is putting them in a difficult position. If the seller wants more money, they've got to go ask the buyer for more money. Would you suggest that they instead tell their client to sell their contract with a different broker? As noble as that sounds, I just don't think it's practical.

It speaks to one's ethics, plain and simple.

Your notion of a seller honoring their commitment is a pleasant one, but it conflicts with the law in this case. My experience says that people are often going to do what they can get away with, and not always what is morally just.

Actually once you have a binding contract (written and money) it does not conflict with the law. The only potential conflict if for the buyer where ethics and legal are different in this situation.

 

[ELMC]

As I stated above, there is a difference in legal and ethical in this situation. For resale, I would say the same for a buyer backing out. There is not legal option for a seller backing out once a binding contract is in place.

Actually once you have a binding contract (written and money) it does not conflict with the law. The only potential conflict if for the buyer where ethics and legal are different in this situation.

Dean, with all due respect, I think we are arguing two different points. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are talking about the process after contracts have been signed. What I'm talking about is the uncomfortable period of time in between the moment your broker tells you that your offer was accepted and the time you receive the email saying that contracts have been received from both parties and the contract is off to ROFR. It is in that space that anything can happen.

Not to tell you what you already know, but my thinking is that from the time the seller verbally agrees upon a price, they have the day or two it takes to create/email the contract, plus they have 7 days within which to sign the contract. If they do not, then the deal has never been bound. I understand what you are saying, that once they "agree" then the deal should stick. But you're talking about what should be, and not what is.

Your point is that once there is a verbally accepted agreement then the deal should be solidified and both parties are obligated. What I am saying is that until the contracts are signed, nothing is binding. I'm not sure if I wasn't clear on that. I agree with what you say above about once you have a binding contract (written and money) it does not conflict with the law. But it seems to me that you think the contract should be bound long before it gets to the signature and money phase. I'm not saying I disagree with you. What I am saying is that although it is an unpleasant thing to do, going back after a verbal agreement has been made is technically legal. Whether or not it is ethical is a matter for debate.

(For the record, my personal opinion is that there is a big difference between the seller who goes back the next day to try to manipulate the system and a seller who wakes up the next morning and says "Oh my, what did I do selling for that little?" Obviously, neither situation is ideal, but there is a distance between them on the spectrum of ethical behavior.)

 

[JimMIA]

You don't need evidence of misconduct by the Broker or have to accuse them of anything. If you as a individual feel the Broker wasn't dealing with you in the manner you believe he or she should, you have the right not to deal with them anymore.

Sure, you can choose another broker for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.

My comment was simply referring to the possibility that the broker actually did something wrong...which, of course, we don't know. I think we all have an obligation to report those folks to the appropriate regulatory agencies.

 

[JimMIA]

That's why I raised questions but didn't make blanket statements. We don't have all the facts for most of the situations we discuss because we have one side of the story and often only part of that.

Dean makes this important point often, and it's one we should always keep in mind when making statements based on what's posted here.

Best case scenario, we only have that part of one side of the story that the poster cares to share. We not only don't have the other side, we don't even have ALL of the poster's side. So a little caution in jumping to conclusions is always a good idea.

 

[Dean]

Dean, with all due respect, I think we are arguing two different points. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are talking about the process after contracts have been signed. What I'm talking about is the uncomfortable period of time in between the moment your broker tells you that your offer was accepted and the time you receive the email saying that contracts have been received from both parties and the contract is off to ROFR. It is in that space that anything can happen.

Not to tell you what you already know, but my thinking is that from the time the seller verbally agrees upon a price, they have the day or two it takes to create/email the contract, plus they have 7 days within which to sign the contract. If they do not, then the deal has never been bound. I understand what you are saying, that once they "agree" then the deal should stick. But you're talking about what should be, and not what is.

Your point is that once there is a verbally accepted agreement then the deal should be solidified and both parties are obligated. What I am saying is that until the contracts are signed, nothing is binding. I'm not sure if I wasn't clear on that. I agree with what you say above about once you have a binding contract (written and money) it does not conflict with the law. But it seems to me that you think the contract should be bound long before it gets to the signature and money phase. I'm not saying I disagree with you. What I am saying is that although it is an unpleasant thing to do, going back after a verbal agreement has been made is technically legal. Whether or not it is ethical is a matter for debate.

(For the record, my personal opinion is that there is a big difference between the seller who goes back the next day to try to manipulate the system and a seller who wakes up the next morning and says "Oh my, what did I do selling for that little?" Obviously, neither situation is ideal, but there is a distance between them on the spectrum of ethical behavior.)

There are many variables and even more when you get into verbal agreements where the possibility of misunderstandings and misrepresentations are far more likely. I will therefore limit my remarks to the situation where there is an offer and verbal acceptance and the ONLY variable is that either party decides to bail for price alone. IMO, that's a situation where legal and ethical take different paths. By extension, that means that multiple offers without disclosure is also unethical, which I've stated previously as well.