Help - Offer To Purchase on a House

SirFooK'nG

SirFooK'nG

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
8,693
Reaction score
840
Location
Durbs / Pinetown
So my brother signed an offer to purchase on a house, seller accepted and all the paperwork was done. Bond approval was done, all the paperwork was at the conveyancing attorneys.

So my brother decides to take a drive past the house (which was vacant when he saw it and the offer was signed and agreed) only to see there is now a tenant in the property. Offer to purchase clearly states there are no tenants and that my Boet want to take occupancy on 31 Jan 2014.

In my mind he can cancel everything because the Estate agency and seller are in Breach. Is this correct? There is a twist, the estate agency (who had sole mandate) denies any knowledge of any tenant agreements. The Seller seems to have signed a new tenant with another agency at the same time as he had sole mandate with Seeff.

How can my boet step away from this cleanly and quickly ?

Pic below of the agreement ...

Seeff.jpg
 
Last edited:
Are the tenants going to vacate by the time he wants to move in?Why is it such a big deal if there are tenants there.He cant do anything to the house until occupation date anyways?

It sounds to me like he is doubting the purchase of the house and is looking for a way out because i cant understand why he would have a problem with a tenant there in the meantime unless that tenant doesn not intend to vacate by occupation date?
 
Last edited:
In South Africa, a tenant agreement supersedes a purchase agreement (ie the tenant lease must run out with the new owner). You cant force them out.... The tenants have only just moved in, been there 1 month now....
 
SirFooK'nG said:
In South Africa, a tenant agreement supersedes a purchase agreement (ie the tenant lease must run out with the new owner). You cant force them out.... The tenants have only just moved in, been there 1 month now....
Click to expand...


Have you spoken to the seller and asked him when they intend to vacate?
 
If the OTP states no tenant and it was signed by the seller as such with a occupancy date for the buyer of 31 Jan 2014.. then the seller has to make sure that the tenants are gone before that date.
 
Ask for the rental agreement to make sure they are gone by the required date?

I'd be more worried about 5.5. Emtpy = no damage, tenants = damage
 
ToxicBunny said:
If the OTP states no tenant and it was signed by the seller as such with a occupancy date for the buyer of 31 Jan 2014.. then the seller has to make sure that the tenants are gone before that date.
Click to expand...

THe seller is in the wrong because there were no tenants stated at point 5.6 above.He should have written tenants to vacate by occupation date.The OP's bro legally can get out of this, im just trying to see whether an arrangement can be made because this deal is basically done and dusted, and i know the headache of looking for nice houses because i just purchased this year after 6 months of looking.
 
Batista said:
THe seller is in the wrong because there were no tenants stated at point 5.6 above.He should have written tenants to vacate by occupation date.The OP's bro legally can get out of this, im just trying to see whether an arrangement can be made because this deal is basically done and dusted, and i know the headache of looking for nice houses because i just purchased this year after 6 months of looking.
Click to expand...

When my brother viewed the house, it was empty.... The seller apparently signed a tenant lease 3 days before signing the offer to purchase. He never disclosed that it was to be rented out.
 
SirFooK'nG said:
When my brother viewed the house, it was empty.... The seller apparently signed a tenant lease 3 days before signing the offer to purchase. He never disclosed that it was to be rented out.
Click to expand...

Seller is at fault, and must bear the legal brunt of his deception.

As per the OTP, the house will have no tenants and will be occupied by x date. Seller has to find new accomodation for the tenants and get them to move.

If the seller tries to play hardball, you start threatening to cancel the OTP, plus nail him for being in breach of contract since he had a lease agreement in place prior to signing the OTP therefore lied when he signed it.

**EDIT**

The Agent will also be on the sellers case for costing them the commision, which the seller will be liable for as far as i know.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Seller is at fault, and must bear the legal brunt of his deception.

As per the OTP, the house will have no tenants and will be occupied by x date. Seller has to find new accomodation for the tenants and get them to move.

If the seller tries to play hardball, you start threatening to cancel the OTP, plus nail him for being in breach of contract since he had a lease agreement in place prior to signing the OTP therefore lied when he signed it.
Click to expand...

Google "huurgaar voorkoop rule" ... you cant get rid of the Tenants now...

The simplest manifestation of this principle of the Roman-Dutch Law can be found when a property that is rented by a Lessee, is sold by the owner to a third party. Here the effect of “huur gaat voor koop” is that the Purchaser is bound to the lease agreement and the Lessee is entitled to remain in occupation in accordance with the terms thereof. The Purchaser cannot plead ignorance and the right of the Lessee is stronger than the right of ownership of the Purchaser, regardless of whether the Purchaser had notice of the existence or the terms of the lease.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SirFooK'nG said:
Google "huurgaar voorkoop rule" ... you cant get rid of the Tenants now...
Click to expand...

True, but you can make the seller sweat... and if your brother threatens to cancel the OTP over it, its a guarantee that the Agent will hit the seller with a lawsuit for the lost commission.
 
SirFooK'nG said:
Google "huurgaar voorkoop rule" ... you cant get rid of the Tenants now...
Click to expand...
The lease should contain provisions allowing the owner to cancel the lease. In fact in the old days you could very easily throw a tenant out. Now your real problem is the rental law, but you can still get rid of them, except it requires going to court.
 
Sorry to hear that SirF. Given what happens to empty houses these days, would it not be a good thing to have someone in the house until he takes occupancy?
 
Nah, its a f up of note. He and his girlfriend (currently living in different houses - both renting) have applied jointly for the bond. They going to move in together. Now both have not renewed their leases for their current places, obviously because they were expecting to be out and into the new house. From what I understand, Seeff the agent is agreeing not to pursue my brother legally, and my brother has agreed to purchase another property via them (so technically they don't lose a sale). The seller of the original place is in for a legal battle, cause Seeff is going to nail him.
 
xrapidx said:
How the hell can Seeff go after your brother legally anyway? :confused:
Click to expand...
They can't, but it is a fairly standard tactic because they have funds to squander on lawyers whereas the average individual does not. They'd never even dare threaten a wealthy person because they know they'd fight back.
 
Shi said:
Sorry to hear that SirF. Given what happens to empty houses these days, would it not be a good thing to have someone in the house until he takes occupancy?
Click to expand...
Most often nothing happens unless it is clearly abandoned.
 
SirFooK'nG said:
My Brother is pulling out of the deal...
Click to expand...

That is very unfortunate.. especially if they both like the house.

Seeff wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a legal sense with your brother, and they would more than likely be liable for costs if they tried and they lost.

I would be saying that your brother must not limit himself to only dealing with Seeff when looking for the next house, he must look with all agents again.

The seller is going to be crying by the end of the day. I'm assuming the house was over the R1m mark... and at 5% he is in for R50k plus legal fees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X