CGM
Active Member
^.. You should write to the media.. That's the best way to get a reaction from them... They are currently selling a couple of projects in the GTA and I'm sure they don't want the publicity
Toronto Malibu Harbourfront Condo | ?m | 32s | Malibu Investments | P + S / IBI
casaguy
Senior Member
Mike in TO, I think ^that^ speaks for itself, no?
Mike in TO
Senior Member
That's defintely a material difference to what was in the contract and buyers on those floors should go after the builder and contact Tarion. A much different issue then an upgrade to individual hydro meters.
casaguy
Senior Member
That's not really the point. The umbrella for our mini-debate was "buyers getting screwed by the developer". If you receive something different than what you were originally told I would call that getting screwed. The merits of it are moot.
Whether it's hydro included versus hydro not included...
or
8 ft ceilings versus 9 ft ceilings...
It is still an untruth and is yet further evidence that deception has strong and deep roots in this business.
I suppose we should justify this ceiling issue by saying, "Well, now think of all the money you will save by having that much less air to cool and heat. It's really in your best interest anyway."
Whether it's hydro included versus hydro not included...
or
8 ft ceilings versus 9 ft ceilings...
It is still an untruth and is yet further evidence that deception has strong and deep roots in this business.
I suppose we should justify this ceiling issue by saying, "Well, now think of all the money you will save by having that much less air to cool and heat. It's really in your best interest anyway."
alklay
Senior Member
If its not in your purchase agreement, then you are probably not going to get it. If it was in your purchase agreement, then you have a right to it, or damages if not delivered. This should all be handled through your lawyer, who should have read the agreement and advised you beforehand, and who can assist you with seeking redress, if that is your right.
The best place to seek your remedy is through the contract, not through internet forums or the media. You either are contractually entitled to it or not. Like the metering issue, this is not a case of 'being screwed by the developer.'
The best place to seek your remedy is through the contract, not through internet forums or the media. You either are contractually entitled to it or not. Like the metering issue, this is not a case of 'being screwed by the developer.'
casaguy
Senior Member
I don't think they're trying to seek redress from an internet forum. They're making their case known publicly. Should disgruntled buyers be kept muzzled and stay quiet?
As per my "being screwed by developers" comment I think you've just proved my point by insisting that a lawyer go over everything. And I don't think the reason for that is because the builder/agent is always trustworthy.
As per my "being screwed by developers" comment I think you've just proved my point by insisting that a lawyer go over everything. And I don't think the reason for that is because the builder/agent is always trustworthy.
cabbagetowner
Active Member
i'm not sure a lawyer could have prevented this type of screw up. maybe they could help now though.
alklay
Senior Member
I am not sure they even have a 'case' and that is what I was implying.
And the fact that one should have a lawyer review the agreement does not imply that a developer is less than trustworthy. It can just as much mean that a purchaser does not really know what they are buying unless its fully explained..
Mike in TO
Senior Member
A purchaser should always have a lawyer go over anything in any major real estate transaction (or any major business transaction/acquisition for that matter) - the developer selling you the condo will be the first to tell you that - this isn't a pair of shoes that you are buying...
You like to use "screwed by the developer" a lot... but we have no idea of any of the circumstances behind this situation and we don't know what is contained in the contracts or what clauses existed to permit potential changes due to a variety of scenarios that may or may not arise and may be beyond the control of the vendor.
With respect to the example on hydro meters, clearly the change occurred because of a provincial regulatory change that was beyond the builders control. Perhaps there is a perfectly good reason (and legal explanation) for the change in ceiling heights – or perhaps there is not a good reason at all - anything posted here is pure speculation unless a rep from the developer cares to join in on the conversation.
Developers generally aren't out there to try to "screw" their purchasers - a happy customer is a lot better then someone who drags the builder through a variety of legal issues or at Tarion (which can become a large headache for builders) or in the media. A lot of condo purchases in many developments come from repeat buyers and referrals and the investor/agent community is quick to flock to good/profitable developers/investments and also quick to stay away from developers with a poor reputation for delivering their product.
Casaguy, I'm not disputing that something may have gone wrong in this and in other cases – (however you should note that condos are not built by machines on an assembly line, they are exposed to the elements, are each a different/unique product and built by people that have a wide variety/disparity of skill sets), what I am disputing is the words that you use that indicate that the developer has some kind of malicious intent to deliver a sub-par product and "screw" everyone who bought from them... it's not a terribly good business model, and while there are a couple bad apples out there, it is definitely not the case for the vast majority of major developers in Toronto.
casaguy
Senior Member
Mike, I agree with you completely. My issue lies with what appears to be in the subtext of what you've been saying. I don't want to drag this OT discussion out any further so this'll be my last post on this matter...
Agree or disagree with the following statement (without any ifs ands or buts or further explanation):
It is perfectly acceptable and ethical for a builder and/or its agents to promise or appear to promise something -- verbally or written in handouts or promotional material -- something that will not be in the original purchase agreement.
Agree or disagree with the following statement (without any ifs ands or buts or further explanation):
It is perfectly acceptable and ethical for a builder and/or its agents to promise or appear to promise something -- verbally or written in handouts or promotional material -- something that will not be in the original purchase agreement.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Casaguy,
It's obviously unethical for anyone to promise something without the intent on delivering on what was promised. So I agree with you 100%.... Although I'd still recommend lawyer to review what was promised and to have it written in the contact.
Sorry, but here is my further explanation you didn't want:
The point I've tried to make from the developer perspective is that changes can occur beyond the control of the vendor, which is why contracts are written to protect to vendor. I'll provide a brief example from a recent condo which I won't name and I think you'll agree that while the purchaser may have been "screwed" depending on your interpretation of that word, the developer had their hands tied and the developer behaved in an ethical fashion.
Purchasers in this condo were promised/given promotional material verbally and written and details were included in the original purchase agreement of an upgrade option for kitchen sinks. Many purchasers in the development bought the upgraded sinks. A couple years later when the development was under construction and the kitchens were being installed, the sink manufacturer had restructured their business and could not produce the sinks that were promised to the purchasers. The situation was totally beyond the builders control that they had no possible way of providing the purchasers (some of whom were quite upset) with the sinks that they had upgraded to. The end result was the builder provided all those purchasers who made the sink upgrade with a credit for a higher value then the cost of the sinks that could be applied to any other upgrade.
So there is a situation where promises where made, deals were signed and the builder was unable to deliver what was promised... did the builder behave unethically? I don't think so, but perhaps someone else might interpret not getting the sinks they thought they had purchased as being "screwed".
So that's my long winded OT response. I don't believe promises should be made without the full intent on following through with them. But buying new is different then resale - what you see isn't always going to be what you get.
If the intent is not to deliver on promises I agree with you 100% that's unethical, but if the builder does everything they can to deliver on those promises and situations beyond their control arise, I don't think it's unethical for a change to occur.
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Ive had my issues with the builder as well... and they wont budge. I have tried every argument and none were working... the only way to get the developer to take notice is to go to the media and kick up a storm. Good luck.
CGM
Active Member
That's true... Never thought of it like that... I say we should go to 6ft ceilings
CGM
Active Member
You'd be surprised how much more compensation you might get just so you shut up about it.
If you paid a premium for 9ft and got 8 ... I'd say it is.
alklay
Senior Member
Why would somebody pay a 'premium' for something that was not in their agreement of purchase and sale?
I think you missed the point of my post: if its not in the contract, you are not entitled to it. It does not matter what an unknowledgable sales rep told you or what the pretty picture showed. If its in the contract, and not received, you are entitled to compensation.