Real Estate Agent Pressurized to Bid at Auction and Provided False Information

Hi All,

Here is the long story short and advice is needed for my friend who is under significant stress at the moment…

My friend went to an auction and was tricked into bidding by the real estate agent who showed him the reserve price which was significantly higher and told him that if his bid was highest, he would have the first right to negotiate.

I asked him, why did you bid? The answer was he liked the property but had not got the inspections, pest control etc as this was the first time he was visiting this property and since the agent told him that the property would pass and then he can get all these things done later so he made a bid.

To his surprise, agent came back after the discussion with the vendor and said vendor is happy to sell at that price and he didn't knew what to do then.

So he walked off and did not signed any contract and feels cheated and also doesn't want to proceed with the property. Now as expected he is getting calls from the agent threatening all sorts of things.

Looking for advice from someone who is knowledgeable in this field or has gone through this before. Property at auction was in NSW.

Thank you in advance.

Edit: Many thanks for your responses. Below is some more information that I have gathered from him and advised him to get legal advice on this.

He reached the auction 10 minutes late, the intent was just to gauge the market sentiment and whilst the auction was paused(as no one was bidding above the x amount, there were at least 3-4 bids that has already been placed) as no one else was bidding; he decided to have a look at the house bedroom's(everyone was standing in the living area) but the agent told him that he cant inspect the house without registering and this made him register for the auction. Whilst he looking around, 3 agents kept on following him and telling him how good the house is and all the other things that they normally would do and kept chasing him up to place the bid to which he said no to multiple times citing reasons as aforementioned. He was then shown the reserve price and told that he could decide later whether to buy the house and get all the inspections done if he was the highest bidder as the house would pass under the reserve which he believed and placed the bid and too his surprise the agent came back and said vendor has accepted his bid and the property is sold to him to which he got frustrated and walked out.

Edit 2: Thank you all for your inputs; he contacted lawyer and has been advised to relax as lawyer is pretty confident that there are too many mistakes that the agent has done where legally agent might get into trouble if this goes to court. few of them he told me are reserve price revealed in private, misrepresentation of information to trick the other person and he also told him that if the agent continues to call or threaten then he can be sued for harassment.

Edit3: Thank you all for your valuable inputs.Property has now been sold to the second highest bidder and REA sent a text message to my friend to pay the difference. My friend has now decided to take this up and these real estate agents in the court.

Comments

  • +21

    Sounds like a case of he said/she said.

    Not having a go - but does your friend also happen to have English as a second language?

  • +131

    Congratulations, you friend has bought a new property.

    • +16

      Next post: any deals for housewarming gifts?

  • +43

    Real Estate Agent Pressurized to Bid at Auction and Provided False Information

    Huh? That's what they do… Nothing new…

    • -4

      Yes, its the sign of a good agent!

      • +9

        Good agents = liars then?

        • +29

          Bad people = Good REA

        • +3

          Whatever that gets the job done that they can get away with.
          New to RE agents?

        • Well the banking royal commission has told us that great agents, brokers and bankers are all big fat liars.

  • +15

    Edit: your friend is boned.

    Extract from Qld law:

    There is no cooling-off period for buying at auction. If you are the successful bidder at the auction, you will have to settle the contract even if:

    -the house doesn’t pass inspections
    -you change your mind
    -you can’t afford it.
    The cooling-off period also does not apply to a private treaty contract:

    -entered into within 2 business days of an unsuccessful auction of that property
    in which the buyer was a registered bidder at the auction.
    The terms of sale usually require you to bid on an unconditional basis. This means you cannot have any conditions, such as:

    subject to finance
    subject to the completion of another sale.

    • It is NSW.

      • +16

        Same deal for NSW - You win the auction, it's yours, no refunds.

        • +3

          Mofo never signed up to that contract though

          • @stumo: That's okay, they have the option of signing the contract and completing the sale or losing the 10% deposit and any damages the seller suffers (difference between final sale price and bid price).

            • @MorriJ: They never signed up to a 10% deposit either.

              • +5

                @stumo: He would have had to register for a bid before the auction started. By registering he is accepting the terms and conditions (provided nothing in them is illegal or misleading), which means that a signed contract and deposit is expected by the winning bid. If he doesn't sign the contract he can be liable for any losses associated with reselling (even at a lower price).

                The only way out of this is if he didn't register.

  • +5

    If the agent can sell it to someone else for a higher price then your friend can walk away.

    If the agent has to sell it at a lower price then your friend can get sued for the price difference.

  • +37

    Did your friend think that by being the highest bidder when the property is passed in, that he can negotiate downwards? lol

    Maybe the auctioneer was being truthful and the vendors decided to drop their reserve at that point in time.

    Why would they lie about the reserve, usually once they say the property is on the market, more people start bidding.

    I think in Victoria that auctions aren't legally binding no matter what the agent says.

    I would have loved to have been at that auction and see the 'winner' run off… lol

  • +2

    Is your friend’s name Emense Fake?

  • +7

    If the bidding reached the reserve then the auctioneer has to announce this. If the reserve was not met during the auction, whatever happens after is by negotiation and I can see no obligation on bidders before the reserve is met.

    • no it didnt reach the reserve, but the auctioneer said sold

      • +17

        But prior to that, did the auctioneer stop the auction, talk to the vendors, come back out then state "the property is on the market", then resume the auction, accept your (friend's) highest bid, and smash the hammer down with a hearty "SOLD!" ?

        • that is exactly what happened…

          • +62

            @guru123: Then your friend has bought himself a new house.

            As soon as he heard "the property is on the market" and didn't want to buy the house he should have withdrawn his bid prior to the hammer coming down.

            Auctions are dirty affairs, but when you are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least do some basic research into how the process works and risks involved

            • +2

              @BOGOF: You can withdraw your bid in auction? Do you need to raise your paddle and say withdraw offer assuming at that point you are the highest bidder?

              • @OzFrugie: That will be nice, can bid be withdrawn like ebay auction?

            • -3

              @BOGOF:

              Auctions are dirty affairs, but when you are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least do some basic research into how the process works and risks involved

              If said person is from overseas from a "well known Aus property" country then that'll be chump change in cash to them probably.

              I mean c'mon this isn't like Bart walking up and randomly bidding $1 for a factory.

              • +3

                @dufflover: Lets be open, your implication is that it is a Chinese buyer. My analytical skills, which aren't astute, suggest that based on the OP's name being "guru.." that it is likely the buyer is an Indian.
                Most indians (I'm stereotyping here) are just out, the same as all of us, to get a good start and generally do not have "chump change" in the coffers.
                I could be wrong but a small number of "guruji's" (ie. Punjabi's) are indeed rich from land prices in India going crazy… and as most are farmers with large areas, can spare change to give to their kids who have now migrated to Australia.
                Please correct me if I'm wrong Guru123 (or other Indians).
                Source: spoken to some Indians in my time about this.

    • Not true, there is no requirement for the auctioneer to announce that the property has reached the reserve price.

      https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/prop…

  • +44

    Laws need to change with Auctions.

    If you choose to take your property to Auction and provide a statement of information with an example figure of 650k to 700k….and it gets passed in at over the 700k, the seller should be forced to sell for whatever that range was.

    Why not put some risk on the seller for once. Especially if they want to play games.

    Just wanted to rant. Sorry, but I think your friend is screwed.

    • +30

      If you take your house to auction and someone makes (any) bid, it should be sold to the highest bidder on the day.

      Bidding should start at the reserve if you're setting one, and you could revise your reserve downwards if no one wants to start at that price.

      • +4

        Totally agree. It’s madness, the idea is to get what the market dictates it’s worth. If the malarkey says it’s worth 500k, but seller wants 800k, the highest bid buys it, simple.

        As it stands it double dips for the seller. Highest bid then the opportunity to negotiate, it’s crazy! Seller wants price x, then that’s the price they should set as a starting figure. It’s not rocket science, and it’s exactly how I sold my last house (and in a grand total of 2 days).

        • +1

          This to me is not an auction. An auction is the highest bidder win even it if it just $1. If buyer wants only a certain amount and above set the reserve price out at the start. Just like how ebay auction works. Simple and straightforward.

          Laws need to change.

          • +1

            @OhNoUShiz: Probably more people would turn up to auctions with potential for a bargain.

            Most auctions have vendors setting unrealistic prices for themselves because they want sensationalised auctions on TV.

            • @netjock: If you want sensationalised auctions like those on TV, just do what OP's friend did.

          • @OhNoUShiz: Err no, so what you are saying is lets change the law so that if for some reason the agent is useless and stuffs up the advertising campaign, some poor unsuspecting person MUST sell their life savings / house for $1 and be liable for balance debt - great idea! NOT!
            Why should people be forced to do anything. Agents play games with sellers too - with their livelihoods.

            • @MrFrugalSpend: No he's not, because they seller can just set a reserve and the auction starts at that price. That's what they other guy is suggesting.

        • You sold too cheap

        • That wouldn't work because bids would just start at $1 every single time….

      • -1

        No, it shouldn't open at reserve, no one ever wants to open the bidding. Auctions would just fall flat everywhere.
        In most auctions that aren't a hot market, the seller has to adjust their expectations on the day also. It gives them a gauge then they can decide to lower the reserve whilst people are bidding.

        I bought my house at auction (just after it was passed in to me) - the seller had to come down $60K after seeing competition from 4 bidders end with me below their reserve then they negotiated me up, i chucked in an extra $5K only and they agreed to sell. Works fine from my perspective.

        You're thinking about it in a hot market / very sought after situation only, where there is a well advertised auction with a lot of competition, this is not always the state of the market.

        This idea would create the most useless auctions ever when the market is cooler… house worth $1-1.1m, bidders want to start around $900K and see what they can get…
        "Anyone want to open bidding at $1.2 million?, anyone/… anyone… by law of OzBargain I can't go any lower than this sellers high range expectation, so lets all go home."
        The end, every time

        • +3

          You're thinking about it in a hot market

          Not at all. You seem to think auctions are the best way to transact, but it doesn't happen like this elsewhere in the world. If the reserve is reasonable then there's no reason why the bidding wouldn't start at that price, and that the seller wouldn't be happy with the result (as they're getting a reasonable price or greater). If someone is willing to pay an 'unreasonable' higher price for a property they particularly value over the other bidders, this is still possible.

          IMO the reason people don't like to start bidding is because they show their hand before the seller has, and it's pointless bidding until the property is on the market regardless. Agents will often just submit successive vendor bids until near/at the reserve anyway, so why not just cut the bullshit?

          If the vendor sees that no one is willing to open at their reserve then they can adjust their expectations and hope for the best - the only difference is that you're wasting less of everyone's time. Why should buyers waste their whole day participating in theoretical bidding wars which might not even result a property sale at the end of the bidding? Opening at the reserve and being on the market at the first bid removes all the games - I can certainly see why REAs would oppose it.

          Yes, it does seem fair enough to me that auctions would appeal mostly to foreclosure sellers/bargain hunters, and that homeowners can't indefinitely conceal their reserve. What other auction operates this way?

          • @BobLim: I don't think auctions are the best way to transact at all, I think private treaty is. but they work in many circumstances. You describe the popular 'offers over' sale type now but are merging it with auctions unnecessarily.

            No need for a law change. People are free to conduct auctions or 'offers over' sales as you have described and instruct the agent to open bidding at the reserve. If they are mad enough or think the conditions are right.

            To get good results for sellers above reserve, your plan involves a couple of people willing to compete on the day to drive it higher despite knowing the seller was happy to sell at the first number - wouldn't happen too often… That needs a hot market and people desperate to buy in… It wouldn't work otherwise, they'd just move on to the gluttony of other properties on the market.

            My house wouldn't have sold at all if it were done how you describe. I would have seen the reserve and lost interest. They would have got no gauge for the market and just been guessing at future lowering it. There was no immediate decision to lower as the sellers were overseas and there was bank involvement due to default.

            The market was not hot when I bought, no one wanted to open the bidding even at 3/4 of the property's value. So I did, several people joined in, and they dwindled until I was left. This then demonstrated what people were willing to pay out of healthy competition. I used this argument to not go much higher on my offer and everyone was consulted (two sellers part owners and the bank) then the next day they came back and accepted.

            Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

            If you properly understand emotions at auctions and how they work, you can't just cut the bullshit. You presume people know what they want…. they don't - auctions are a big show that also help shape buyers and seller's opinions of the market and allow them to hastily adjust their thinking on the fly.

            • +2

              @MrFrugalSpend: Except that you could've gotten the same outcome in a few phone calls without leaving home - the auction was useless, as the reserve was clearly unreasonable, and the property was never on the market. Everyone who attended wasted their time, except to convince the seller to lower their expectations.

              As you said, this would've been inevitable as you and all the other potential buyers also lost interest at the quoted price - this would trigger a price reduction without wasting your time on the phone calls either.

              The auction rules I proposed would have either seen the auction cancelled, or you purchasing for a marginally lower price on auction day, without any of the mucking around.

              • @BobLim: Your assessment is wholly inaccurate. I'd not have given it another look.
                I wouldn't have made the phone calls. The other potential buyers would not have been pitched neatly against one another to sort out what they are willing to pay quickly and easily - rather, I wasted less time and the agent wasted far far less time by bringing it all to a head in a 10-15 minute auction block versus what you propose. The number of phone calls required to achieve what you are talking about and giving people time to think would have taken hours over days.

                The reserve wasn't unreasonable, it's what they thought they could get from when it was hotter but hadn't tested the market. The market was in a cool down and I got a good buy as they needed to sell and adjusted to meet the market.

                The auction show gets people to front up and make decisions and judgement calls in an efficient way. It brings it to a head on both numerous buyers and seller's sides.

                The seller stakeholders got an account of what transpired and adjusted their thinking and we all walked away with a result very quickly.
                The property was clearly on the market as I bought it - lol! They reduced to what they needed to but without some convoluted trial and error process your method would have involved.

                Auctions do the opposite of mucking around, if you ever been involved in non-auction property transactions involving multiple offers and differential expectations from buyers and sellers you'd know there is much more involved in what you propose, or someone just gets sold the property hastily in a 'first in best dressed' fashion then a bunch of other people claim they'd have paid more and missed out, and they say "you snooze you lose". Except lots of people lose as they didn't battle it out and the best sale price wasn't achieved and some people feel they missed out on opportunity to offer and the seller / property value wasn't achieved.

                I'm sorry but traditional auctions are tried and tested and proven and your theory is not that great in practice except for the neat little scenario you've painted in your head which is rarely the case.

                • +2

                  @MrFrugalSpend: Once quoted prices adjust to meet a fair estimation of actual market value, that scenario wouldn't happen so often. If the owners truly aren't willing to budge then you're right to move on. If they are willing to adjust then they can do it at the start of the auction by lowering their reserve until an opening bid is made. As you noted, the bidding may increase that a fair margin once it gets started anyway - but this should be the seller's risk.

                  I've been to plenty of auctions and purchased by private treaty (against multiple competing offers). If a vendor wants a genuine, unretractable offer to be shouted openly in public, they should provide a genuine, unretractable commitment to sell. Why should only a vendor be able to see the auction result and have the free option to "take it or leave it" but the winning bidder can't (like the OP)?

                  It doesn't take days without an auction - you make the offer and it's either accepted or rejected, usually quickly and with feedback on why (seller wants more, special conditions not acceptable, another buyer already offered more etc).

                  The reserve […] adjusted to meet the market.

                  i.e. originally it was unreasonable - the market disagreed.

                  For all we know, the cashed-up potential buyers were all in a different suburb 6km away at the time of your auction, and at a different time the seller would've gotten all they wanted and more. Maybe if the auction result was binding rather than an option for the seller to reject, they would've attracted more buyers. Maybe those buyers know the market is declining - therefore the greedy/emotional vendors are unlikely to accept the auction result and they might as well just call up on Monday with an offer of 85% of what they would've paid at a binding auction.

                  If a vendor wants the best price they should sell by private treaty with a competent agent. There's plenty of time in the day of the REA to solicit and manage multiple offers from anyone with any interest. An agent who won't follow up leads (and keep any potentials alive on the books before you even meet them) shouldn't be engaged to sell your property.

                  An auction only delivers a pool of buyers who are available on the day and time you choose, accept your contract terms without alteration, and will only ever pay slightly more than the underbidder's limit - each of these factors are a handbrake on the sale price. At least a more transparent process starting at the reserve will make it fair and genuinely competitive.

                  • @BobLim: There are plenty of scenarios where a property needs to be sold but people can't nail down what it is worth in their situation / climate. Unique property / circumstances, not much market activity in the area etc, forced sale (e.g. bank) etc, (or the opposite, a heated market where the sky is the limit). Auction brings it to a head to allow people to make a decision quickly on what to meet the market (or be pleasantly surprised). That doesn't mean it was unreasonable, in fact in my case they owed that much in debt so had to sell it at a loss.

                    Starting wherever a buyer wants to offer is perfectly logical. I threw out a starting opening bid figure at my auction and away we went. Your auction would have been a farse. They would have thrown a figure out there well over $100-$150K higher and everyone would have went, na, and away we all walked leaving an auctioneer to call 3 separate seller stakeholders (two geographically diverse estranged partners and the bank) to see whether to lower the start reserve crap you talk about. So they lower it $10K and no one bids again, and on it goes all day whilst everyone loses interest.

                    There would be no competitiveness about it. No one would have bid.

                    Mate there are plenty of negotiation options for what you are talking about. Auctions have their purpose. Competent buyers and sellers have had plenty of good outcomes through them. They don't need to start at reserve FFS. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you don't like auctions, don't sell via them or go to buy via them.

                    It's perfectly fair, logical, and competitive already.

                    As for your support of private treaty, I already said I prefer private treaty. What I am saying is illogical is your proposal that all auctions MUST start at reserve as a rule. Malarkey.

                    • +2

                      @MrFrugalSpend: You can still have an auction, it's just that you're not wasting everyone's time by holding one then not selling to the highest bidder. If the sellers can walk away from the auction result, why can't the buyers?

                      So they lower it $10K and no one bids again, and on it goes all day whilst everyone loses interest. until the market price floor is discovered and the bidding commences as normal

                      Yes it might get annoying - maybe the agents will become better at convincing the vendors to set a reasonable reserve, and accurately delivering on a price point. For me, knowing that the sale will be made once the bidding starts is much less annoying than wasting travel time plus half an hour watching "bids" where the "winning bidder" doesn't win anything.

                      In your scenario of the multiple parties, it's much easier to have agreements in place beforehand regarding the price. With 0 bids at a given reserve instead of relying on the agent's opinion "ah but I think if I say it's on the market we might get another 100k once the real bidders show themselves", it's easier to agree to keep lowering the reserve until it's the minimum the seller will accept. Below that, the property will be retained by the vendor and offered for sale privately.

                      I would think something like a bank forced sale would presumably set the reserve at the lowest end of the possible market price bracket, and then be pre-approved to step down by 50k or so until 25% (or something) below, then converted to private sale if 0 bids. This practice doesn't mean the sale price would be any different to today's auctions, but it's certainly simpler for all involved.

                      Logically the current auction format should never solicit a genuine first bid - for many reasons there's no point bidding until it's on the market. So let's just skip that part and get straight into a real auction.

                      • @BobLim: I think you need to better understand what is really happening in an auction.
                        Legally, the seller is making an "invitation to treat" by holding an auction and setting out the conditions. They are not making an "offer" at law.
                        They usually use agents / auctioneers and give instructions to the agents - the agents are legally allowed to sell the property on the seller's behalf if reserve is achieved, the seller cannot back out as you suggest (unless they give subsequent instructions, the agent can bind them under the authority signed appointing them as agent).
                        So, people tend to set reserve at the high end of what they want and ask to be consulted on anything below. They don't want to risk getting a really low offer and losing their life savings / going broke by holding an unreserved auction. It's the safe option, after all they have everything to lose, buyers don't have much to lose other than an hour or two on auction morning - you seem to be more worried about someone's morning than a person's whole life savings, please revisit your priorities!
                        Bidders pre-register and agree to the terms laid out in doing so - this is part of the legal process.
                        During the auction, the potential buyers (bidders) are making offers to buy the property. This is the important bit you are missing - It is the buyers that set an opening bid and any subsequent bids - no one is telling them they must bid anything (Auctioneers sometimes prompt for one to get it moving but that is all it is).
                        Obviously people can throw out any number so the seller shouldn't be bound to whatever is put forward - it could be a Jatz cracker.
                        People hopefully outbid each other and drive the price up - with good luck they go beyond reserve and the seller cannot backout (neither can the buyer).
                        If they don't get there, the agent can then go ask the seller / stakeholders, having witnessed the turnout and the proceedings and what people were willing to bid and whether they want to lower to the reserve, instruct to sell etc to spur it along. If they do, it's all binding on them too at that point (like it would have been had reserve naturally been met)… their life savings on the line.
                        If they weren't happy with the turnout and want to try their luck a different way - so be it. They didn't lose their house and people maybe lost an hour or two - so what, its a free decision to attend and make a bid or phone bid one in.
                        No one is stopping people negotiating private treaty thereafter and everyone is better informed on the level of interest and bidding.
                        Or, there's some nice productive competition, reserve is passed or okay given to lower regardless, everyone is locked in, it sells, happy buyer and seller and agent, all good - done in no time. Fantastic.

                        You honestly think that people will happily work backwards until someone bids then go up again??! lol no. Its counter-intuitive and not reflective of what is happening at an auction - bidders are free to make offers not the other way around.

                        So no, for a bank forced sale, I wouldn't think what you proposed… I'd think exactly what happened in MY REAL SCENARIO is what would happen and did happen, and brought about a satisfactory outcome for all parties. Legal precedence strongly supports this process in such circumstances because it is long tried and proven as a way to set market value and resolve the settlement. Reserve was set at what the property owed them (it was not unreasonable - they paid that much for it in slightly hotter market), they auctioned it as the parties were estranged and it needed to be sold. In its condition, in the cool market, I made an opening bid offer (I guarantee you that offer was a real genuine offer, I'd have happily bought it for that being $75K below what I later paid), several other people bid as well until it was passed in back to me much higher as I just kept bidding them up. It was passed in to me to negotiate, the sellers all reset their expectations having seen what had happened at auction, and agreed to my slightly elevated bid over what it passed in as.

                        You obviously have no experience with the practicalities of running an auction, with how difficult it can be to determine what you believe is a 'reasonable sale price' in certain circumstances (you speak like it is some definitely known number), that both buyers and sellers need to gauge sentiment and have it demonstrated to them. What you propose is not easier like you are saying - the auction process, as it is, is way more sensible and straight forward then your proposal and has clear and obvious reasons why it should remain as is. When you have delved into the thinking / psyche of each of buyers and sellers at different points in the process of negotiating with various stakeholders (as they consult with one another and talk it through) if you've been on all sides of it, in multiple scenarios, you'd understand.

                        • @MrFrugalSpend:

                          Legally, the seller is making an "invitation to treat" by holding an auction and setting out the conditions. They are not making an "offer" at law.

                          I understand this, and this is precisely the problem IMO.

                          A reasonable reserve price is near the market price - not that hard to determine and there are thousands of professionals who seem to be capable of doing this. "Someone's morning" is a bit different to someone's whole Saturday every week for months as they keep turning up to these events. VIC thought it necessary to compel the agents to declare an estimated sales price to better manage buyer expectations and avoid wasting their time and money on inspections etc - this is just more along those same lines.

                          You honestly think that people will happily work backwards until someone bids then go up again?

                          Absolutely. If the starting price is reasonable then the bidding may start from there on a desirable property. If the reserve is lowered once you'd have a few (maybe all) holding out for when it drops again from 'reasonable deal' to 'cheap' then making an opening bid. The other buyers would still be fine with getting the 'reasonable deal' or more, so they'll still bid.

                          Does it matter if the popularity of the classic AU auction is 'ruined'? We seem to both agree that private treaty is often the best way to go anyway.

                          • @BobLim: I will re-iterate:
                            - Sellers get to determine the reserve. Many have their own ideas on this without wanting to accept detailed analysis from professionals (no matter how many decades of property industry experience or tertiary qualifications in property valuation and real estate they have).
                            - Even if they do want this advice, market conditions change, sometimes rapidly, and the timing and uniqueness of many sales make it difficult to get a super-accurate reserve in some circumstances.
                            - Some don't want to listen to professionals but will finally agree to an auction after months of trying to get their high price in private treaty with a 'disregard all previous prices' tag because they have to sell - such personalities need to witness the show of building up then stalling to know what their property is worth - they'd never be able to work it down the other way. I've seen it - selling is really hard for some people in their circumstances.
                            - Auctions have their place to help bring about a result in finding this price and helping numerous stakeholders align for a result - I disagree they are ruined (other than when Covid restrictions play a role).
                            - Again you are still prioritising someone's relatively brief amount of time in relation to each property, even if it over someone's life savings on the line. If someone (i'm guessing you or a friend) keeps turning up to such events every week for months - I'm guessing its you/your friend that needs professional advice on market value because statistically the majority of people don't auction unless they want to sell. Again, I re-iterate all of this is free will to decide whether auctions are for you, what to opening bidding at, whether to spend the time etc… If you don't like it - focus on private sales, and if auctions are "ruined?", you won't have a problem skipping them, right?
                            - Auctions create are a psychological experience that influences people's decision making and plays on FOMO etc. It can be hard to even get any opening bid. Furthermore, some people (e.g. frugal) can't bring themselves to pay more than what a seller would have been willing to sell for so could not go beyond reserve and would immediately bail - it is often better they don't know reserve. It would not have the required impact to go backwards then forwards. People want what is desired by others, and those who like to know they are getting a good price (who would otherwise have been willing to pay more) would struggle to push it higher knowing the seller would have sold at opening bid. Not all properties are overly desirable rather than a sad backwards auction where everyone just doesn't bid and waits for a desperate seller to get lower and lower whilst crying in the back room (it happens!), then psychologically the 2-3 genuine buyers just let the other have it cheap (as in a cool market they know they can pick up the next one anyway). And in the case they are desired, there is no point arguing about starting price as it would soon eclipse reserve anyway, no one would even know what it was, so my point is valid.

    • +1

      I agree - in fact, I agree with the below comment, that all auctions should just start at the reserve. That makes everything transparent.

      However, this has nothing to do with this situation here. Seller and buyer can always transact "by agreement" (if you will) even if the property is going to auction.

      Sorry, but I think your friend is screwed.

      Why is he "screwed"? He made an offer and the offer was accepted.

    • +1

      I witnessed my first auction a few months ago and couldn't believe how carni the whole process felt. No wonder nearly every preoperty is going to auction these days: it puts pressure and very small time constraints on buyers to put up massive amounts of cash with almost no risk to the seller.

      • Love your username.

        I couldn't agree more with you.

  • +16

    Enjoy your new house "friend" op

    • I wish I could help him here :(

  • +7

    in victoria they would be fine

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/winning-bidder-th…

    https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/buying-and-selling-p…

    There is no legally binding contract until both buyer and seller have signed the contract of sale.

    https://www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/real-estate-news/auct…

    I don't know that it has been tested in nsw so far, so your friend might have to be the one to do that

    Now as expected he is getting calls from the agent threatening all sorts of things.

    what exactly?

    and check with your friend - get them to make a list of every single piece of paper or digital device they wrote on and whether or not they signed it

    • He is in NSW, the agent is telling him that if doesnt buy the property they will take him to court and he will have to pay their legal fees as well and they will sue him.

      He mentioned that he didnt signed the contract or wrote on anything…he was frustrated and couldnt think what to do at the moment and he just walked off.

      • +7

        well he should get some advice from a lawyer. one who is familiar with NSW real estate law.

        i am not a lawyer

        but for what it's worth…

        the agent is telling him that if doesnt buy the property they will take him to court and he will have to pay their legal fees as well and they will sue him

        did you read those articles i posted? granted yes they are victoria but still worth a read

        from this one: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/winning-bidder-th…

        Vendors could consider suing the person for money lost in the process, but that was unlikely as they would probably just want to get their property sold, Mr Mericka said.
        “You’ve got to quantify your loss and then your loss has to be sufficient to take it to court and nobody’s going to do that,” he said.

        • +1

          According to NSW Fair trading

          "If you are the successful bidder, you must sign the contract of sale and pay the deposit on the spot (usually around 10 per cent of the purchase price)."

          He said above that the agent came back and stated it was on the market. So it doesn't look like much option.

          At minimum I think they would be able to get a deposit and court fees out of it. That will cover expenses by the agent to put it to another auction.

          • +1

            @dizzle:

            He said above that the agent came back and stated it was on the market. So it doesn't look like much option.

            what OP said:

            since the agent told him that the property would pass and then he can get all these things done later so he made a bid.

            To his surprise, agent came back after the discussion with the vendor and said vendor is happy to sell at that price and he didnt knew what to do then.

            ^ doesn't sound like they announced during the auction that it was on the market to me. that sounds like a negotiation after the house has failed to reach the reserve and is about to be passed in.

            which would mean when his friend bid, it was not on the market yet.

            At minimum I think they would be able to get a deposit and court fees out of it. That will cover expenses by the agent to put it to another auction.

            maybe

            and it's still a lot less than the house price

            • +2

              @bargain huntress:

              BOGOF 1 hour 43 min ago
              +1 vote
              But prior to that, did the auctioneer stop the auction, talk to the vendors, come back out then state "the property is on the market", then resume the auction, accept your (friend's) highest bid, and smash the hammer down with a hearty "SOLD!" ?

              Then OP replied

              guru123 1 hour 42 min ago
              that is exactly what happened…

              I think that clarifies the original post.

              The agent is still trying to close the sale. Even taking to court they won't get the bid price now. What they would get is either the price of a standard deposit OR the price difference to what they eventually sell it at (more likely). But OPs friend is now a safety net so that if they have to sell it at a lower price they can recoup the difference (+ court fees).

              • @dizzle: Oh thats bad, now REA can sell it to good friend at low price and OP Friend has to come up for the price difference.

            • @bargain huntress: I don't think there's a legal requirement that they have to announce the property is on the market before being sold?

              • @kiitos: Probably not, but that could be them removing the doubt about between it being sold unconditionally or being passed in (for negotiation).
                If they lower the reserve while bidding is still going on then the highest bid is the winner. If they lower the reserve after the sale has been passed in the winner does not need to accept.

                It's also a tactic sellers use to try and get further bids.

      • +2

        What information your friend has been given? Licence? He should have signed something before he is able to bid

      • +4

        https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/buyi…

        "If you are the successful bidder, you must sign the sale contract and pay a deposit on the spot, usually ten per cent of the purchase price. There is no cooling-off period when you buy at auction."

        That is why the agent is chasing your friend, your friend was obliged to sign the contract and wandered off instead.

        edit: was beaten by 53s, heh

      • @guru123

        He mentioned that he didnt signed the contract or wrote on anything…

        Then how did he bid? And how does the real estate agent have his phone number to call and make demands?

        Are you sure your friend is being honest about any of this?

  • +17

    Maybe don't need bid on a house if you don't want to buy it?

    • +2

      Sort of like an eBay auction for grown ups.

  • +8

    I'm not in NSW - but here goes:
    1. You can't normally create an interest in land by parol - so unless you friend has signed something he has wiggle room.
    2. It is a breach of the ACL to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in the course of trade or commerce. It sounds like there is an argument that the REA MAY have misled your friend as to the true position - but that is not clear at this stage. The ACL gives wide remedies if misleading conduct is involved - including voiding the contract.
    3. If your friend has actually received a formal demand, they need to get legal advice.

  • +13

    If your friend can afford a house in NSW he can afford a lawyer

    • definitely a good point, and I have asked him to do the same; he is planning to touch base with them tomorrow morning. Hopefully his nerves get settled tonight - he seemed under a lot of stress…

  • +5

    Your friend tricked himself into thinking the real estate agent somehow would be trustworthy, they are there for their client which is the seller, they do not give a crap about you the buyer.

    Basically if your friend refuses to go ahead with the purchase, they can resell it, and sue your friend for any difference in price down the track.

    • +16

      they are there for their client which is the seller,

      WRONG ! They are there just for themselves. In this case it was easier to cheat the buyer. They worked the seller too, by "convincing" him/her to lower the reserve.

    • This is why I like the Canadian system. Both the seller and the buy have a real estate agent.

  • +5

    When your "friend" signed the bidder card, it should have terms and conditions for what s/he signed up for… did your friend read it, as it should have state all the T&C comments above has made.

    BTW, tell your friend, auctioning a property is NOT like ebay.

    Anyways, your friend will become a new house owner or face legal consequences.

    • OP said the friend didn't sign anything

      • +4

        that would be odd, to bid without a bidders card :/

      • +7

        How did the buyer bid if they didn't register for the auction?

        The REA is calling the buyer which means that they have some details on paper.

        • whooah OP's "friend" exposed.

  • +5

    I don't get it. If the property had been passed in and negotiations took place, surely it would have resulted in a higher price than the passed-in bid, not lower…did they think they could get inspections etc and then end up with the same or lower price than they bid at auction?

    • -1

      Why? A passed-in property under negotiation could easily be worth less than when it's being irrationally and competitively bid on during the REA circus.

      If your auction fails, you might have to compromise on price or conditions to make the sale - such as allowing the buyer to conduct their inspections and discount your (negotiated lower as it was clearly unreasonable originally) reserve price by the cost of rectifying any defects.

  • +2

    why did you bid? The answer was he liked the property but had not got the inspections, pest control etc as this was the first time he was visiting this property and since the agent told him that the property would pass and then he can get all these things done later so he made a bid

    All things that could have been done if it was passed in and no one else bidded.

    So he walked off and did not signed any contract and feels cheated and also doesnt want to proceed with the property. Now as expected he is getting calls from the agent threatening all sorts of things.

    Well they went to an auction, they bidded at an auction, they won the auction……

    • Do you have to register at the auction beforehand in order to bid?

      He did arrive late and it wasn't clear if he registered (if that matters).

  • +1

    It's unclear from OP's post, but it sounds like they DIDN'T win the auction. The property was passed in and OPs friend offered first right to negotiate. AFAIK you are not obligated to buy at that point. That would be a stupid rule.

    • +3

      another commenter got OP to clarify that it wasn't passed in, it was sold during auction: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/601669#comment-10029175

      "But prior to that, did the auctioneer stop the auction, talk to the vendors, come back out then state "the property is on the market", then resume the auction, accept your (friend's) highest bid, and smash the hammer down with a hearty "SOLD!" ?"

      OP: "that is exactly what happened…"

      • +2

        Thanks… missed that, not sure what this thread is about then. They bought the property and can only terminate with a huge penalty.

        People playing at home - don't bid at an auction if you have no intention of buying.

  • +1

    Whats the property address? Maybe there might be some interested buyers here that can take it off his hands for the right price.

  • If he didn't sign anything at all then who is to say it was him at the auction? Could have been any random person…

    • +4

      Apparently the agents are 'threatening' him, so it's safe to say they have some contact information, and probably ID. It's not like The Simpsons, a random guy can't just walk past and shout 'a dollar!'

    • +3

      In NSW you have to register as a bidder. So I would assume they have full details, and probably even sighted a license.

Login or Join to leave a comment