Report comment

Is it just me that finds the idea of a restriction on a buyer's (or seller's) decision whether or not to buy/sell a property very disturbing? We are not talking about whether or not to spend £20 on a new throw pillow/phone cover/insert frivolous item of your choice - this is potentially the biggest investment a buyer will make in their lifetime and for the seller, for me, it's their property and if they decide they don't like the buyer, and can't get over that feeling, why should they sell the house they've no doubt made many happy memories in? As a previous comment said 'what happened to subject to contract'? If an agreement to make an agreement is brought in, what's to stop and agreement to make an agreement to make an agreement etc etc. I know, silly , but hey - it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Also, what is a break all agreements reason to you, may not be the same for me. Why should anybody be forced to buy something they no longer want for whatever reason, and why should a seller who has decided against selling - again, for whatever reason - be forced to move forward with a transaction, PRIOR to exchanging contracts. The exchange of contract moment comes when every party has done the measuring, the working out of sums, looked at the school bus schedule, double-checked that their furniture can fit into their down-sized new home etc. THEN is the moment when the parties should have 'skin in the game' and not before.

Idiotic. The whole world has gone to the dogs. In my view, it is interfering in a legal process that everybody understands for no real reason. I accept that property transactions fail, but that is because people have free will. Moving the goal posts just adds an extra layer of interference that is neither warranted or likely to be effective.