To Close or Not to Close … and How to Make It Hurt if Your Buyer Walks
Explore various options on how to dissuade a recalcitrant buyer and what to do if a deal falls apart.
July 06, 2017 at 12:00 AM
4 minute read
You have your buyer and you have a fully executed contract … your game of chess has just begun. The unpredictability of the commercial and real estate markets has caused an uptick in real estate litigation from buyers and sellers trying to back out of closings. As with many things, the more work you do at the beginning of the deal—drafting the strongest contract possible—the easier it be will be to get to that closing. Let's explore various options on how to dissuade a recalcitrant buyer and what to do if a deal falls apart.
Cut out as much legalese as possible. A contract is no different from all legal writing. It will be read and interpreted by a human, so it should be written for one. There are obvious yet crucial elements that should be included: the closing date, whether there is a limit to the number of extensions, the length of the extensions, and what the ramifications are for each. For example, an extension may call for a deposit to go “hard” (non-refundable) or require additional deposit money as each extension is exercised. The agreement should stipulate that the deposit be held in escrow and provided to the seller if the buyer walks away. Since the extension is a key tool used by sellers to make it more difficult for buyers to pull out, it should also be a mechanism that, prior to closing, should direct as much money as possible to the seller's side of the table.
What is “free and clear”? A seller may be cognizant of problems that exist with the title and should require they be assumed by the buyer. To avoid the buyer using these hurdles as a pretext, the seller should include a condition precedent in the agreement, making it the buyer's obligation to perform an ownership and encumbrance report and conduct his own due diligence within a specified amount of time before the closing date. It is critical to identify what violations constitute materiality, which a seller is responsible to cure, and what immaterial violations are the responsibility of the buyer. Property must be able to be transferred with a clear title.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute read830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readThe Canadian Influx: How Migration to Florida Is Shaping the South Florida Real Estate Market
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250