Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="lynx000, post: 3368886, member: 2065"] My post was predicated upon an assumption that what Haas maintains occurred, has in fact occurred, that is, that he was not told by Orr of the change. It would be a bold strategy to commence a court action if he knew. Assuming that to be true, in my view he was obligated to inform and his failure to do so places him at risk of the contract being set aside. The bolded is nonsensical with all due respect. Orr can assert whatever he wants, but if it is not in writing it is likely that his oral testimony will be open to question. As an experienced agent you would expect (just to cover yourself and to protect your commission) him to have it all in writing that you have explained the change to the client, advised the client to get independent legal advice if they choose to do so and have them sign that in front of witnesses. Thankfully I don't need to know Orr's side of it because I am not deciding the case. Once again, my opinion was predicated on ptance of what Haas is alleging being correct. I will await the judgment and I will read it with great interest. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 106 (members: 0, guests: 106)