First, the basic contract is NOT non-negotiable.... it's just that you have
not offered a sufficient inducement to get them to alter their position.
I trust others will have already pointed out the transaction costs
involved and the legal concerns that discourage a seller from considering
any change in contractual language that could expose the seller to various
liabilities or which might lessen the enforcement provisions of basic
language attorneys have reviewed and blessed.... but despite all of that I
assure you that the basic contract language IS negotiable.
Offer to TRIPLE the purchaze price of the home if they will just alter a
couple of insignificant terms in the contract, or add a comma somewhere. Or
to significantly increase the closing costs payment, or whatever it is that
is going to directly increase the payment to the person or business
resisting changes to the contract language. As soon as the representative
of the company (or the representative's superior if the representive you
iniitally deal with is brain-dead and rejects your proposal) then will
discuss the changes you initially suggest, you have established that change
is possible and you can try to negotiate the changes you would like.
I am reminded of the old joke where the man walks up to a woman in bar and
asks her if she would sleep with him for five million dollars. The woman
quickly tosses back the rest of her drink, stands, slides her arm into his,
and purrs, "Certainly, handsome." He then pulls out his wallet and hands
her a single bill and says, "How about a quick b***-j** in the parking lot
for $20?" At that point she recoils and slaps him hard in the face, nearly
shouting, "What do you think I am!?!" He responds with, "I think we have
already established that, now we are simply negotiating."
Bryan Caplan wrote:
> The company I'm buying a house from won't negotiate any part of the
> basic contract. Why not? The dopey answer is "monopoly power"; even if
> the company were a monopoly, that wouldn't explain why they exert their
> power on the contract terms margin rather than the price margin. So
> what's the right answer?
>
> I tend to think that the seller just anticipates no gains to trade. The
> higher the price, the fewer takers, the fewer takers, the higher average
> transactions costs, sp WTP never rises above MC. Other ideas?
> --
> Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan
>
> "We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different
> reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike
> the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied
> with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body
> does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our
> conduct (mental illness)."
> --Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
--
Jes Beard, Attorney at Law, 737 Market Street, Suite 601
Chattanooga, TN 37402-4820 423/267-4391/267-4394(fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jesbeard.com icq #30623114
