We were contacted by our lawyer, saying that their lawyer had sent her a note.  Apparently, they feel that they are justified in asking for a $1000 settlement, to make up for ‘expenses incurred as a result of the delay’.  These expenses were not identified.  They also want to extend the closing until Friday June 13th, but they want to get in the house NOW, to ‘clean’.  

I don’t understand why WE have to come up with a thousand dollars to mitigate THEIR expenses caused by the delay, when THEY are the ones asking for the adjustment in closing dates!

Meanwhile, Glenn has left SIX MESSAGES at CRA, concerning the form which is now in their hands.

As an aside, I had another tumble this morning, while trying to help Glenn get our new entertainment stand inside the house.  My foot slipped off the edge of the sidewalk, causing me to drop my end of the unit, and topple on to the grass, whacking my left shoulder and my head.  Brings Grandma’s favorite saying to mind;  “Where there ain’t no sense, there ain’t no feeling”, except OUCH!  My head hurts, but the real tally won’t be known until tomorrow, when the bruises have had the chance to really develop!  The unit is fine.

This is the note I fired back at our lawyer, hoping that she feels my intolerance, and passes it on to the other lawyer!

 

    WE have been exceptionally understanding with these buyers.  We recall being first time buyers ourselves, and understand how anxious these times can be for them.  However, we feel that the financial aspect of us allowing them early access to the property BEFORE the purchase price has exchanged hands, should certainly mitigate the $1000 in unsubstantiated costs that was claimed.
 
In order to ensure that the property remains covered by insurance, we have extended our policy’s coverage up to the date when this transaction can be concluded.  We have not, not did we ever intend to, require that the buyer compensate us for this additional coverage.  We simply felt that the property AND both parties would be best served by this additional security.
 
The buyers should also keep in mind the inherent risks that we have assumed by granting them access to the said property, when the transaction has not yet been completed.  We decided to allow them into the property, assuming that perhaps the occupancy on their previous property had already lapsed, as per the dates of original intention.   This is a situation that does not easily lend to a fiduciary settlement, but it is one of common courtesy, and ‘random kindness’.  
 
We have thought of the best interests of the buyers in all situations.  It is time that they stopped the self serving posturing, and granted us the same consideration.
 
 
I simply could NOT help replying to this unreasonable discourse.  I’m tired, frustrated, and rapidly becoming the bitch I always wanted to be, in these situations.  
 
Maybe it’s a head injury…

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s