<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with clause</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/clause</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'clause' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:44:26 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:44:26 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>Who to believe? Broker or lawyer?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/56124/Who%2Dto%2Dbelieve%2DBroker%2Dor%2Dlawyer</link>	
	<description>Brokers - I think I got some bad advice from a real estate broker when buying a house, and it might cost me the deal... how do I know who&apos;s telling the truth? Before we put in our offer, our broker said that we shouldn&apos;t ask for a mortgage contingency clause because it would make our offer more attractive. So, we bid and specified no contingency - and now our lawyer wants us to sign a waiver if she&apos;s going to continue to represent us because she says this is a really bad idea. The broker claims in five years of doing closings (this is in Scarsdale, NY) she&apos;s never had a contract with a mortgage contingency. Our lawyer and our mortgage broker says that can&apos;t be true. Is our broker telling the truth? If she&apos;s not, what can she stand to gain? &lt;br&gt;
Our lawyer says that without the clause, the seller sees little benefit but we face enormous risk if it goes pear shaped, which we agree with. Our broker says if we don&apos;t agree to waive the contingency clause, we&apos;ll lose the deal... has anybody been through this before? What&apos;s going on here?</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2007:site.56124</guid>
	<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:44:26 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>brokers</category>
	<category>chicanery</category>
	<category>clause</category>
	<category>contingency</category>
	<category>estate</category>
	<category>mortgage</category>
	<category>real</category>
	<dc:creator>ny_scotsman</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>Should we accept an offer with a contingency?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/45345/Should%2Dwe%2Daccept%2Dan%2Doffer%2Dwith%2Da%2Dcontingency</link>	
	<description>OK, we FINALLY got an offer on our house (after 4 months on the market) and we can&apos;t decide if we should accept.  The house is now listed at $385k and the offer came in today for $325k.  We countered with $370k and they countered with $345k.  We counter-countered with $362k and they say they want to stay at $345.  The issue is that the offer is contingent on them selling their house (the realtor called it a &quot;hubbard clause&quot; and the offer paperwork he sent me calls it &quot;sale of buyer&apos;s property contingency&quot;.  &lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
As I understand the legal mumbo-jumbo, he has until Sept 17 to have a signed contract on his house for selling it and if he doesn&apos;t, we will cancel his offer.  I also understand that we can continue to keep our house listed on the market and if we get a better offer, he has 2 days to prove to us he can buy our house or we cancel his offer and take the other offer.  Am I understanding this all correctly?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I&apos;m not entirely comfortable asking my realtor since he&apos;s representing both of us (and the sale of the buyer&apos;s other house).  &lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I am inclined to accept the offer since it&apos;s been on the market for 4 months, and the market is tanking and that it&apos;s the end of the summer and things are about the slow way down anyway.  I just want to make sure I&apos;m understanding the contingency correctly.  I don&apos;t know any realtors, so I turn to the brilliant hive mind.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I am totally green about all this and I&apos;m really nervous.  In fact, I&apos;ve decided I&apos;m never buying or selling real estate again!!!  Ugh!!&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Thanks everyone!</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2006:site.45345</guid>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:58:32 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>buying</category>
	<category>clause</category>
	<category>home</category>
	<category>hubbard</category>
	<category>realtor</category>
	<category>selling</category>
	<dc:creator>SheIsMighty</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>Supreme Court Reversals</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/9006/Supreme%2DCourt%2DReversals</link>	
	<description>Has the Supreme Court ever reversed a unanimous Supreme Court ruling?  How frequently are 8-1 rulings overturned?  I&apos;m writing a paper on &lt;i&gt;Brown v. Board of Education&lt;/i&gt; and was wondering whether it was worth it for Warren to press for unanimity given that the &quot;all deliberate speed&quot; clause was added to achieve this, and severely diluted the ruling. Uhm...  Is this thing on?</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2004:site.9006</guid>
	<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:46:46 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>brownvboardofeducation</category>
	<category>clause</category>
	<category>dilution</category>
	<category>law</category>
	<category>legal</category>
	<category>overturn</category>
	<category>ruling</category>
	<category>scotus</category>
	<category>supremecourt</category>
	<category>us</category>
	<category>warren</category>
	<dc:creator>alphanerd</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

