Sentences with phrase «purchaser fails»

And it can mean a home purchaser fails to tap a better mortgage interest rate that expires, she says.

Although many sellers seem intent on trading in family retreat at a pre-set price, they are equally content to stay put if a purchaser fails to step up to the plate, says the report.

The purchaser failed to close or tender on the agreed upon closing date, so the vendor maintained the agreement was at an end.

By the purchaser failing to tender even its own calculated purchase price on closing, it breached the purchase contract and lost its deposits to the vendors.

The purchaser failed to show that the broker knew or should have known the information found in the assessor records was false.

Also, the purchasers failed to present any evidence of an intent to deceive them, offering only suspicion and conjecture to suggest an intent to deceive.

The court concluded that the purchaser failed to exercise due diligence.

If the Purchaser failed to obtain financing 30 days prior to the closing date, the Seller could cancel the transaction and the earnest money would be refunded to the Purchaser.

When the potential purchaser failed to close on the property, the seller then closed the deal with the buyer.

Not exact matches

Many so - called customer loyalty programs fail because they seem a rigged game to the purchaser.

Students of human pathos may one day cherish the 16 - minute recording of me, with my 100 percent positive - feedback rating as an eBay purchaser, failing to make renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so - called weak force, admit that he can't explain how a magnet holds a dry - cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator.

For copies of Works purchased pursuant to TOS granting «the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy» of each purchased Work and to «view, use and display [such Works] an unlimited number of times, solely on the [Devices]... and solely for [the purchasers»] personal, non-commercial use», Amazon will not remotely delete or modify such Works from Devices purchased and being used in the U.S unless (a) the user consents to such deletion or modification; (b) the user requests a refund for the work or otherwise fails to pay for the work (e.g., if a credit card issuer declines payment); (c) a judicial or regulatory order requires such deletion or modification; or (d) deletion or modification is reasonably necessary to protect the consumer, the operation of a device or network used for communication (e.g., to remove harmful code embedded within an e-book on a device).

If the seller then fails to provide the documents, the purchaser is entitled to a partial refund of 50 % of the purchase price.

Any pet store found in violation with respect to the sale of a dog or a pet store that fails to refund the purchase price of a dog is liable to the purchaser of the dog for an amount that is equal to the actual damages incurred by the purchaser within one year after the date of the purchase of the dog, except veterinary expenses of up to $ 500.

The settlement last month of a multi-million-dollar real estate class action will allow 143 purchasers in a failed commercial condominium to recover almost half their original deposits after the project became insolvent.

Regardless of whether the Notice of Termination is given for the landlord's own use under s. 48 or on behalf of a purchaser under s. 49, if the person who claimed to require possession under those sections fails to occupy the rental unit «within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit» (s. 57 (1) RTA), the landlord will be liable under the RTA for failing to give a «good faith» notice of termination and will be liable to significant financial penalties payable to a former tenant and to the Landlord and Tenant Board under s. 57 (3) RTA.

Purchasers who purchase a property where the seller failed to disclose a known latent defect may be able to seek damages from the seller or their agent for failing to disclose the latent defect, and purchasers should seek prompt legal advice regarding their rights and availablePurchasers who purchase a property where the seller failed to disclose a known latent defect may be able to seek damages from the seller or their agent for failing to disclose the latent defect, and purchasers should seek prompt legal advice regarding their rights and availablepurchasers should seek prompt legal advice regarding their rights and available remedies.

No purchaser has any right or remedy under this section who fails within 15 days from receipt to accept an offer to repurchase for a price equal to the full amount paid and interest.

The purchaser alleged that the vendor failed to disclose these latent defects in the property.

Regardless of whether the Notice of Termination is given for landlord's own use under s. 48 or on behalf of a purchaser under s. 49, if the person who claimed to require possession under those sections fails to occupy the rental unit «within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit» (s. 57 (1) RTA), the landlord will be liable under the RTA for failing to give a «good faith» notice of termination and will be liable to significant financial penalties payable to a former tenant and to the Landlord and Tenant Board under s. 57 (3) RTA.

No. 54, the status certificate prepared by the condominium corporation had failed to include the monthly common expense amounts related to two parking units which formed part of the property the purchaser was acquiring.

However, Ms. Morrow successfully argued before Justice Pollak that the purchaser was also a Royal Lepage client and that the broker had failed to disclose this information to Ms. Morrow prior to presenting the offer to purchase to Ms. Morrow.

The Divisional Court noted that although the Realty agent did introduce the buyer to the property, the Realty agent failed to obtain a signed Buyers Representation Agreement from the purchaser and failed to advise Remax prior to the closing that she was acting for the purchaser.

He is currently acting for a purchaser of property whose conveyancing solicitor failed to protect her interest in the property pending a delayed completion resulting in part of the property being conveyed to a third party and for a company whose workshop was flooded following the admitted negligence of a contractor involved in the renovation of adjacent pipework.

The defendant purchaser, although entering into the agreement with a developer and having received disclosure statements, failed to close.

In Krawchuck v. Scherbak, the real estate agent was found to be 50 per cent at fault for their lack of diligence in reconciling misleading statements made by their client, failing to inform their client of the implications of their false statements and failing to bring these issues to the attention of the purchaser.

The plaintiffs allege that the real estate professionals breached their fiduciary duty by failing to open escrow, failing to deposit the purchasers» deposit into escrow, failing to notify the seller that timing was critical because the transaction was part of a Section 1031 exchange transaction, failing to identify alternate properties, and failing to use correct forms.

Example 2: REALTOR ® B, who had recently received his real estate license, was found to have violated Article 4 for failing to disclose to his seller - client that the purchaser that REALTOR ® B had procured was, in fact, REALTOR ® B's wife.

Even if the real estate defendants failed to perform the duties identified by the purchaser, the seller was still contractually obligated under the parties» agreement.

However, the purchasers» negligent misrepresentation claim failed because of lack of evidence that they relied on the vendors» representations when they closed the transaction.

The Licensee failed to disclose the work he had attempted on the property, despite allegedly receiving questions from the Purchasers related to this topic.

The past twelve months included a Washington case in which home purchasers sufficiently alleged a deceptive trade practices class action suit against listing brokers who failed to provide specific disclosures regarding airport noise as required by a county ordinance.

The court also found that the purchasers» real estate representative violated the state consumer fraud law in failing to inform the purchasers of his relationship to the seller of the property.

While the court agreed that it is possible the Purchaser could claim that the Seller was estopped from claiming title defects which would have prevented the closing when it had misrepresented the status of the title in the purchase agreement, the court ruled that the bankruptcy court had failed to make sufficient findings of fact in support of this ruling and so reversed the equitable estoppel ruling, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

An Indiana appellate court has considered whether a real estate professional was properly held liable for failing to tell purchaser all of the information he knew about an easement on the property that his client was in the process of acquiring.

A Florida appeals court has ruled on whether a purchaser can cancel a sales contract and receive a full refund three years after contracting when the developer failed to provide notice of rescission within the sales contract, as required by the federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.

A Florida appellate court has considered whether a purchaser's lawsuit adequately stated claims against a listing broker for failing to disclose latent defects on the property.

Maine's highest court has ruled on whether a broker who failed to disclose to purchasers that she was interested in buying property while she accompanied them on a property viewing and listened to a discussion of their offer with the listing agent could be liable for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

Further, he failed to return the Purchaser's earnest money after he allegedly believed the purchase agreement was terminated, further supporting the conclusion that he was waiving his right under the contract to terminate the agreement.

Queens Structure Corp. v. Jay Lawrence Asso., Inc. (304 A.D. 2d 736)-- brokers representing the seller for a commission of $ 367,000 with respect to the sale of seller's property also entered into an agreement with the prospective purchaser whereby the purchaser agreed to pay the brokers a «consulting fee» of $ 257,000; brokers working for seller had an affirmative duty not to act for the purchaser or its assignee unless the seller had full knowledge of the facts; brokers failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law to the $ 257,000 consulting fee to be paid by purchaser; brokers» motion for summary judgment denied.

Hill Realty Services v. Cummings (244 A.D. 2d 525)-- owner's cross-motion for summary judgment granted and affirmed where broker produced two purchasers for owner's property but there was never a meeting of the minds as to several material terms of the sale; broker failed to proffer evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to allegations of seller's bad faith.

Bronson v. Algonquin Lodge Assn., Inc. (295 A.D. 2d 681)-- broker entitled to commission where broker establishes that owner agreed to sell its property at the full appraised value and that broker produced a ready, willing and able purchaser at the price set forth in a formal written appraisal of the property; owner, a not - for - profit corporation, fails to establish that the listing agreement violated either its constitution or Not - For - Profit Corporation Law § § 509 and 510 which govern the sale of real property, not the execution of the listing agreement

Mucci v. Munsey Park Assoc. (231 A.D. 2d 501)- broker not entitled to commission; commission agreement provided that broker would only be entitled to a commission in the event that buyer exercised an option to purchase subject property and take title thereto; buyer neither exercised said option nor acquired title to the property; unavailing that purchaser had the same principals; broker's claim for recovery in quasi-contract fails where there is a valid and enforceable written contract governing the particular subject matter.

Dawn's Gold Realty v. Dagnese (304 A.D. 2d 519)-- broker's complaint dismissed where brokerage agreement provided that a commission shall be due and payable when, as and if title passes and seller demonstrates that the purchaser procured by the broker failed to consummate the sale and that title never passed; broker failed to raise triable issue of fact that the failure of title to pass was due to the seller's fault or default.

Kling Real Estate, Ltd. v. DePalma (306 A.D. 2d 445)- summary judgment motion dismissing broker's complaint affirmed; broker's suit for commission based upon two binder agreements fails where unilateral modification of the proposed contracts of sale by the prospective purchasers constituted a counter offer which the seller rejected; no cause of action exists for commission against buyer in second transaction where sellers agreed to pay the brokerage commission

1000 DOS 02 DOS v. Olson — DOS fails its burden of proof; failure to pay judgment; DOS fails to establish that broker retained an unearned commission and converted or commingled deposit money; broker earned commission acting as agent of the purchaser when broker secured the agreement of the owner to sell mobile home to the purchaser; broker paid judgment and delay is excused by broker's financial difficulties; charges dismissed

594 DOS 01 DOS v. Walker - deposits; failure to appear at hearing; failure to pay judgment; failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; notary public; proper business practices; broker commingles funds by placing deposits in operating account; broker allows escrow account to be overdrawn on numerous occasions; broker uses deposit for separate, unrelated business investment; broker fails to pay judgment without presenting an explanation or excuse for failure to pay judgment; broker fails to cooperate with DOS investigation by failing to respond to and comply with letter directing him to appear for a conference and to provide certain documents; broker fails to notify DOS of new address upon closing office; DOS fails to prove that salesperson improperly held herself out to be real estate broker associated with corporate broker, that the broker made misrepresentations to the purchasers regarding payments they were required to make toward the purchase, that some checks were returned for insufficient funds, that the broker failed to make certain required payments, that the broker properly failed to make certain other deposits and that the broker gave a postdated deposit check which could not be cashed due to insufficient funds; representative broker's and corporate broker's licenses revoked, return of deposits in the amount of $ 400.00 and $ 3,173.83 ordered with interest, civil judgment to be fully satisfied; salesperson fined $ 1,000.00 and notary commission suspended for four months

84 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Woodland - failure to appear at hearing; jurisdiction; mortgage applications; failure to pay judgment; ex parte hearing may proceeding upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction over respondents for acts of misconduct which occurred during licensure even though the licenses expired on their own terms; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish broker failed to obtain signature on agency disclosure form; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish that a broker has an obligation to «pre-qualify» a potential purchaser; broker breached duty to deal honestly with the public when advised purchaser he would assist in obtaining financing and failed to do so; DOS fails its burden of proof that broker wrongfully failed to hold a $ 500.00 deposit in escrow as deposit was remitted to seller with the permission of buyer; failure to pay judgment without a showing that broker is unable to do so is a demonstration of untrustworthiness; no action to be taken for reapplication for broker's license until payment of $ 1,000.00 fine and proof of satisfaction of judgment

Marshall v. Gallinger Real Estate Co. (222 A.D. 2d 1101)- fraudulent misrepresentation; fraud cause of action fails where purchaser (i) noticed defective condition upon first visit to property, (ii) hired an engineer to inspect the property, and (iii) where there was no active concealment of defect.

A purchaser may recover in a civil action brought under the Disclosure Act against a real estate licensee if the licensee fails «to disclose to a purchaser a defect actually known to the real estate licensee prior to the acceptance of an offer to purchase and which were not included in the disclosure statement.»