real estate contract from local real estate board office

[BradleyS]

What is the name of your state? Kansas

I am a real estate broker and I use contracts that are provided by our local board office. The contracts are fill in the blanks.

The contract reads "This is a legally binding agreement, please consult an attorney before signing."

I recently lost a court case. The jury ruled the even though the corntract was signed, it was NOT BINDING, because the signed contract was not immediately delivered back to the buyer.

I don't believe there is any KS Statute besides the UCC Statute on contracts that describe the "time is of the essance" scenario. Is there?

The UCC Statute states a reasonable amount of time for delivery.

The Pattern Instructions for Jury's in Kansas PIK 124.04 states that a contract is not effective until the acceptance of the offer must be communicated back to the offerer.

Since there was only one agent involved, and the signed contract was given to that agent without any written conditions, shouldn't this make the contract effective, using the PIK 124.04???

The seller wanted to accept another offer that was submitted after he signed another. "Seller's remorse"

The seller demanded that I destroy the contract so he could accept the higher offer, I wouldn't.

I told a principal that he signed the contract and it was binding, and the earnest money was deposited with the contract at the title company before any knowledge of any other offer. I advised him if he wanted to break the contract that he should consult an attorney.

The question is ---

If delivery of a signed contract back to a buyer makes the contract effective, shouldn't it be apart of contract? Should the board office that provides the contracts to REALTORS be held liable for not having this very important step written in the contract?

I never took a law class, I almost have the KREC's Rules and Regs memorized. Shouldn't this be a Statute? Especially dealing with Real Estate Agreements and the Statute of Frauds?

What can I do to have a statute written for Real Estate Contracts? Like I said before, the UCC Statute has definitions, but not the Statutes that we are provided by the KREC?????

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? Kansas

I am a real estate broker and I use contracts that are provided by our local board office. The contracts are fill in the blanks.

The contract reads "This is a legally binding agreement, please consult an attorney before signing."

I recently lost a court case. The jury ruled the even though the corntract was signed, it was NOT BINDING, because the signed contract was not immediately delivered back to the buyer.

I don't believe there is any KS Statute besides the UCC Statute on contracts that describe the "time is of the essance" scenario. Is there?

The UCC Statute states a reasonable amount of time for delivery.

The Pattern Instructions for Jury's in Kansas PIK 124.04 states that a contract is not effective until the acceptance of the offer must be communicated back to the offerer.

Since there was only one agent involved, and the signed contract was given to that agent without any written conditions, shouldn't this make the contract effective, using the PIK 124.04???

The seller wanted to accept another offer that was submitted after he signed another. "Seller's remorse"

The seller demanded that I destroy the contract so he could accept the higher offer, I wouldn't.

I told a principal that he signed the contract and it was binding, and the earnest money was deposited with the contract at the title company before any knowledge of any other offer. I advised him if he wanted to break the contract that he should consult an attorney.

The question is ---

If delivery of a signed contract back to a buyer makes the contract effective, shouldn't it be apart of contract? Should the board office that provides the contracts to REALTORS be held liable for not having this very important step written in the contract?

I never took a law class, I almost have the KREC's Rules and Regs memorized. Shouldn't this be a Statute? Especially dealing with Real Estate Agreements and the Statute of Frauds?

What can I do to have a statute written for Real Estate Contracts? Like I said before, the UCC Statute has definitions, but not the Statutes that we are provided by the KREC?????

**A: you need to check the governmental procedures on how a law is passed in your state. Talk to a state Senator or Representative. Your local Board of Realtors should have a PAC. Check into it.

 

[UNCLEBUCK]

Hi BradleyS,

I have a question not directly related to your question that I'm curious about. In the phrase "This is a legally binding agreement, please consult an attorney before signing.", how many people would you estimate actually heed this? For example, if you meet with prospective Seller's, do most of them consult an Attorney before sighing the Listing Contract with you?

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: I recently lost a court case. The jury ruled the even though the corntract was signed, it was NOT BINDING, because the signed contract was not immediately delivered back to the buyer. I don't believe there is any KS Statute besides the UCC Statute on contracts that describe the "time is of the essance" scenario. Is there?

A: There may be now; your case may have set a precedent.

 

[BradleyS]

Hi BradleyS,

I have a question not directly related to your question that I'm curious about. In the phrase "This is a legally binding agreement, please consult an attorney before signing.", how many people would you estimate actually heed this? For example, if you meet with prospective Seller's, do most of them consult an Attorney before sighing the Listing Contract with you?

To this day, not a single client of mine, nor my agent's, have ever consulted an attorney.

 

[BradleyS]

Q: I recently lost a court case. The jury ruled the even though the corntract was signed, it was NOT BINDING, because the signed contract was not immediately delivered back to the buyer. I don't believe there is any KS Statute besides the UCC Statute on contracts that describe the "time is of the essance" scenario. Is there?

A: There may be now; your case may have set a precedent.

KSA 58-3062 List prohibited acts for any real estate licensee.

How can I get this statute ammended?

KSA 58-3062(12) Fail to see that financial obligations and committments between the parties to an agreement to sell, exchange or lease real estate are in writing, expressing the exact agreement of the parties or to provide, within a reasonable time, copies thereof to all parties involved.

--
There shouldn't be a "reasonable time." It leaves a loophole for licensee's to endure what I went through.

In your opinion, am I on the right track?

 

[seniorjudge]

KSA 58-3062 List prohibited acts for any real estate licensee.

How can I get this statute ammended?

KSA 58-3062(12) Fail to see that financial obligations and committments between the parties to an agreement to sell, exchange or lease real estate are in writing, expressing the exact agreement of the parties or to provide, within a reasonable time, copies thereof to all parties involved.

--
There shouldn't be a "reasonable time." It leaves a loophole for licensee's to endure what I went through.

In your opinion, am I on the right track?

I recently lost a court case. The jury ruled the even though the corntract was signed, it was NOT BINDING, because the signed contract was not immediately delivered back to the buyer.

I guess I'm a little confused. You say first that you lost because you didn't immediately deliver it to the buyer but now you are saying that there shouldn't be a "reasonable time" requirement.

Did you fail to deliver it back to the buyer immediately or within a reasonable time?

 

[UNCLEBUCK]

'There shouldn't be a "reasonable time." It leaves a loophole for licensee's to endure what I went through.'

In your opinion, am I on the right track?

I for one certainly think so. Let's see what HomeGuru has to say.

Also, thank's for answering my question on people consulting Attorneys before signing contracts. I think many people do this because it is in their eye's 'standard practice'. Just as it is 'standard practice' (at least in my State) for an Attorney to collect the check from the sale of a house at the closing. Usually within a few days he deducts his fee's and other closing costs (taxes, etc.) and sends the remainder to the Seller's. This is accepted by most folks. In my opinion it is insane that anyone would agree to this. A number of years ago in CT, a closing Attorney that had about $10,000,000 in his account from residential closings took it and left the country. The Seller's never got it back. My parents sold a small piece of land some years ago and showed up with a check for all of the closing costs, including the Attorney's fee's, and asked that the check from the Seller's be given to them. This outraged the Attorney. When they asked why this was a problem his response was "It's just not the way things are done." Well, they got their check anyway. It's the only way I'd do it.

 

[BradleyS]

I recently lost a court case. The jury ruled the even though the corntract was signed, it was NOT BINDING, because the signed contract was not immediately delivered back to the buyer.

I guess I'm a little confused. You say first that you lost because you didn't immediately deliver it to the buyer but now you are saying that there shouldn't be a "reasonable time" requirement.

Did you fail to deliver it back to the buyer immediately or within a reasonable time?

Day 1: two offers presented to seller

The seller rejected offer #1 at 5:30pm

The seller accepted offer #2 at 5:30pm

Offer #1 was informed of the acceptance of Offer #2 at 5:45pm

Buyer's from Offer #1 submit another offer by fax at 11:37pm

Day 2:

Agent deposits earnest money and contract at title company at 8:00am.

Agent is made aware of faxed offer #3 from the buyers of Offer #1 at 8:30am.

Agent calls seller to presents offer #3 to as backup offer at 10:00am
Seller did not want to accept backup offers.

***Agent finally gets ahold of buyer of accepted offer #2 at 3:00pm.

Day 3:

Seller rejects offer #3 in writing.

Day 5:

Seller calls me, wants to know why they cannot accept offer #3. I told him that he had accepted offer #2.

Seller upset with broker, informed me that he contact the agent for Offer #1 and #3 and was told by the agent(salesperson), that they could accept offer #3. (In transcripts)

Hence, my posted thread on "tortious interference of a contract."

Fact:
Buyer of Offer #3 was not notified of the acceptance before Offer #3 was submitted.

I know it's confusing. Just think what a jury had to go through.

 

[BradleyS]

Day 1: two offers presented to seller

The seller rejected offer #1 at 5:30pm

The seller accepted offer #2 at 5:30pm

Offer #1 was informed of the acceptance of Offer #2 at 5:45pm

Buyer's from Offer #1 submit another offer by fax at 11:37pm

Day 2:

Agent deposits earnest money and contract at title company at 8:00am.

Agent is made aware of faxed offer #3 from the buyers of Offer #1 at 8:30am.

Agent calls seller to presents offer #3 to as backup offer at 10:00am
Seller did not want to accept backup offers.

***Agent finally gets ahold of buyer of accepted offer #2 at 3:00pm.

Day 3:

Seller rejects offer #3 in writing.

Day 5:

Seller calls me, wants to know why they cannot accept offer #3. I told him that he had accepted offer #2.

Seller upset with broker, informed me that he contact the agent for Offer #1 and #3 and was told by the agent(salesperson), that they could accept offer #3. (In transcripts)

Hence, my posted thread on "tortious interference of a contract."

Fact:
Buyer of Offer #3 was not notified of the acceptance before Offer #3 was submitted.

I know it's confusing. Just think what a jury had to go through.

The legal definition of Reasonable time:

REASONABLE TIME - The English law, which in this respect, has been adopted by us, frequently requires things to be done within a reasonable time; but what a reasonable time is it does not define: quam long-um debet esse rationabile tempus, non definitur in lege, sed pendet ex discretione justiciariorum. This indefinite requisition is the source of much litigation. A bill of exchange, for example, must be presented within a reasonable time. An abandonment must be made within a reasonable time after advice received of the loss.

---

These words, "reasonable time" should not be used in our state statutes pertaining to real estate contracts.

It is my personal opinion:

Once a written agreement is made between a buyer and seller, and the agreement has been released to a licensee acting on the behalf of the principal or not, the acceptance of the contract is effective, unless conditions set forth in writing on the contract do not warrant acceptance(counteroffer).

There SHOULD be a limit of 5 business days, or an amount of time, that the buyer and seller agrees to in writing, for the licensee to communicate to the Offeror, that a contract was accepted.

The Offeror should not be denied their offer once accepted because the licensee whether working for their client or not, could not immediately notify the Offeror of the acceptance.

Additionally, the notification of the acceptance should be in writing, to comply with the Statute of Frauds.

---
A kansas statute states that a licensee must deposit earnest money with 5 business days.

It is as simple as a game of chess.......take your hand off your chess piece after making a move.........sorry charlie, you made the mistake......not me!!!!