-
I dunno, you try conducting your business that way, see how far you get.
Example - I agree a rental contract with potential tenants. They are happy because they’ve found a home. I send them a summary contract with the agreed figures and state that the contract is to follow.
A couple of weeks later and a few days before issuing the contracts I tell them that it’s now 20% more expensive because magically the market has got really hot overnight.
That’s a shitty thing to do, no? Ignoring the emotive ‘poor buyers’ and ‘evil landlords’ tropes, obvs.
You mean gazumping? That's shit behaviour. They've looked someone in the eye, agreed to something, then reneged on it because they could come out the other side better off if they trade their honour for a few £.
If you mean they try to get the most for their gaff before accepting an offer, then sure, of course they do. The have the asset, other people want it and you can’t magic another one from a factory. It's not a balanced situation, the seller has all the power. That others will offer £x + 1 is pretty great evidence that the place is worth at least £x +1.
Yeah I mean people are going to do dumb things like try to renegotiate on deals they've already agreed. But how much less should they now offer? And what puts them in a position to decide? Only the fact that they have the seller trapped, and that they can play on their fear. Some might think that it's balanced the situation, but I don't. It's shit behaviour.
8B's example above shows that even after a downwards negotiation buyers can still inflict a large amount of self harm upon themselves by proceeding.
Better to apologise and sack it off if you can't handle it. And that's how the readjustment will come.