Wrong Utah REPC Was Used OUCH
April 23rd, 2009 Categories: Real Estate News
The Utah Court of Appeals overturned a case where the wrong Utah REPC Real Estate Purchase Contract was used.
Here it goes.
A man name Flores enters into a lease option to buy a condo from a man named Earnshaw. Flores paid $10,000 for the option to purchase a yet to be built condo $144,950.
They used a REPC that was for property with existing improvements. Then later Earnshaw said they made a mistake and the price should be $184,950. Earnshaw then told Flores that he would give him a $5,000 discount and only charge him $179,950 minus the $10,000. Flores said no way.
So Flores takes Earnshaw to court for specific performance and wins.
Earnshaw takes it to the court of appeals arguing that the contract states.
1.1 Included Items. Unless excluded herein, this sale includes the following items if presently owned and attached to the Property: plumbing, heating, air conditioning fixtures and equipment; ceiling fans; water heater; built-in appliances; light fixtures and bulbs; bathroom fixtures; curtains, draperies and rods; window and door screens; storm
doors and windows; window blinds; awnings; installed television antenna; satellite dishes and system; permanently affixed carpets; automatic garage door opener and accompanying transmitter(s); fencing; and trees and shrubs.
When the contract was executed none of the above items were there and Earnshaw says because of 1.1 he was only responsible to give Flores a shell and the Court of Appeals sided with Earnshaw. He won on a technicality; it doesn’t say if there were any real estate agents involved.
I think if there were no real estate agents involved I might have to side with Flores, a professional developer vs is consumer.
I hope there were so that Flores can sue them for the damages.
Leave a Reply
Copyright © 2007 3 Pounds of Real Estate Agent Login Design by Real Estate Tomato Powered by Tomato Blogs
[...] Original post by 3 Pounds of Real Estate [...]
[...] Original post by 3 Pounds of Real Estate [...]
Hi,
I recently sat in on (more like a refereed) a rather heated conversation between a real estate Agent and his first-time home Buyer client. They had just closed on the purchase of a home in Arizona, and both of them were quite upset.
Seems that the original Arizona MLS listing on the property had indicated that the refrigerator was “to be included with the home.” The refrigerator was even mentioned in the property fliers, shown in photos of the kitchen and pictured in a virtual tour of the property. The refrigerator was in the home during the Buyer’s first viewing, at the second viewing, during the inspections and at the final walk-through the day before recording.
In the end it only matters what the buyer and seller agreed to “IN WRITING” I realize there may have been a lot of intentions and assumptions.
As an agent when something like that happens, I just go buy a refrigerator and have a happy client.
Great info about ceiling fans and decorating, I will keep this in mind while I build my new house.