Talk:Real estate contract

message: I have never found conveyancing very interesting so I am not the best person to ask about this. However, I offer the following questions:
*is the form of the agreement the same regardless as to the nature of the estate being transferred or are there significant differences in the formal requirements depending on whether it is a freehold or leasehold estate and, if the latter, depending on the term of years, or if rights in and over land are being transferred?
::A leasehold estate, in my understanding, is a fancy (probably somewhat archaic) legal term for the a tenant's right to occupy real estate when renting it.  In the case of leasehold estate, the contract is colloquially and maybe even formally typically referred to as a lease in the case of renting or leasing real estate such as apartments.  This would be a good point to include in the Leasing article, in my opinion.  The form of a leasehold estate contract or lease is very different from a contract for freehold estates, which this article covers.  Leases or leasehold estates practically never involve recordable deeds in the USA, but freehold estates usually do result in deeds or similar recordable documents, which in the USA are recordable with the county.  The deeds are typically separate documents from the real estate contract.  
::The form of the agreement will also vary in other ways depending on the nature of the real estate being transferred.  There is no single set form which is abolutely required for a real estate contract in the USA.  There are often some rather standard fill-in-the-blank forms written by lawyers for real estate contracts which can be bought by parties interested in using them.  However, principals are allowed to write their own real estate contracts typically.  Real estate agents that are not lawyers must use a standard fill-in-the-blank form in some jurisdictions if they prepare a contract.  H Padleckas 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A counterquestion here is: invalidity of the real estate contract or invalidity of the deed?  Invalidity of the deed represents a problem.  The conveyance or transfer of real estate may not be valid.  Invalidity of the contract due to a lack of compliance with a required formality in the contract does not automatically invalidate a voluntary conveyance by the deed.  In fact, no written contract is really required to convey real estate between willing parties in the USA.  The real estate contract itself is not recorded with the government and is typically not revealed to the public and often not even to the government unless a problem arises in a court case.  As long as at the closing, the parties agree to go through with the sale or transfer of the property, the resulting conveyance will be valid until one of the parties then takes the other to court, asking that the conveyance be invalidated based on a non-compliance with the contract.   The contract is just a bilateral promise to go through with the sale as specified in the contract.  If before the closing, one of the parties fails to comply with the "promise" in the contract, then the other party can take the non-complying party to court and force them to comply.  If the real estate contract is not written, then it is not enforcable by a court in the USA, but not necessarily void.  A non-written contract can still be "valid between the parties" and still result in a conveyance with a deed by willing parties.  If before the conveyance, the contract is found to be unsatisfactorily flawed, then the contract could be considered void by the parties or will be voided by the court and the status of the parties should be returned to whatever it was before any performance of the contract.  The contract can then be renegotiated correctly if the parties are willing.  This is USA law; I'm not sure if all these details are valid in other countries.  H Padleckas 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: invalidity of the real estate contract or invalidity of the deed? This terminology for a distinction is meaningless to me. For freehold, everything revolves around the registration process and, if one party refuses to complete the process, remedies for damages and/or specific performance would be available. If we are in commercial conveyancing and leasehold territory, a wrongful failure to complete would also give rise to remedies for breach of the initial agreement to buy or lease (assuming it was enforceable). In Scotland, for example, the first offer and acceptance is the contract of transfer. The key is always the document of title (possessory or freehold) and, in England, we have the equitable maxim, "Equity regards that as done which ought to have been done". So, if a technical failure would frustrate a legal transaction, Equity will save the transaction by treating is as having been done. David91 06:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware that it makes any difference.  H Padleckas 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Usually it's not done in the USA, although it could be done.  Usually there is enough information written in the real estate contract to identify the lot and/or real estate to be sold unambiguously, and that is all that is required.  There are several established ways of doing this in the USA for the contract and/or deed.  This would be the topic of a separate article.  Often, one way to do this is to reference plat maps in the public records in the contract and/or deed.  H Padleckas 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If it could be demonstrated to a court of law that duress or coercion was used to force a party to agree to or sign any contract, the contract would be voided.  The most fundamental principle of general contract law for any kinds of contracts, including real estate contracts, is that all of the parties must voluntarily agree to the contract at the time it is signed (or formed).  This is true not only in the USA, but I'm sure the rest of the world too.  H Padleckas 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: From these two references  , ad idem effectively means "a meeting of the minds," which is a necessary element for all contracts, including real estate, according to general contract law in the USA.  If the parties do not agree to the same thing in a contract, then the contract is void.  This is another fundamental aspect of contract law which I think would be true throughout the world.  If there was a material problem with the real estate, I think it would be up to the courts to decide if any legal remedy would apply, if the case were brought before a court.  H Padleckas 06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason I asked is that a deed is not treated in the same way as an ordinary contract in English law and, short of fraud, deeds are difficult to avoid. (I hope all this work is useful and will result in a better page. My apologies for prodding you into all this effort.) David91 06:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a real estate contract, there is no absolute requirement that the signatures be so witnessed, but it might be a good idea if the case ever went to court.  Actually, it is impractical to notarize or even have formal witnessing for every real estate contract because there are often numerous offers and/or counteroffers made in order to reach an agreement.  Often the offer and acceptance are made in separate locations and times by each of the parties.  Some people "fishing" for real estate to buy may send out many signed offers, most of which may be rejected or ignored.  The closing is typically a more formal meeting.  The deed need only be signed by the grantors (sellers) and the deed-signing is typically notarized.  H Padleckas 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Can we specify in what countries these laws apply? Monado (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose laws?