Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright
It's not a con job though, there will still be a hotel in the building. No one ever signed a written guarantee it would be a Wanda. In fact, they did have a written commitment as the developer from Wanda that they would move in. Just because Wanda was forced to back out and it will now end up being someone else doesn't mean the buyer was conned.
Let's extend your logic further. Let's say the building is built, Wanda opens as planned, condo buyer closes as planned. Then two years later there is a recession and Wanda goes out of business. Does that now give the buyer the right to sue the developer and make them buy the unit back? No, that's absurd. This suit doesn't really stand a chance aside from them hoping Magellan pussies out and just decides it's not worth the effort.
Again, I don't feel bad for the buyer at all. These things happen all the time in real estate. You can't control things outside of your control like the Chinese Communist Party or global pandemics (huh, also the Chinese Communist Party). What's next? Everyone in streeterville will sue the previous owner of their unit who sold them on proximity to the lakefront path and Navy Pier because Lightfoot shut them down due to the pandemic?
No, you are advocating for contracts to be worthless, not to protect buyers.
|
This all sounds great aside from the part where Magellan lied through their teeth to buyers... You're advocating to abolish buyers rights/protections in full favor of development firms who can just go "Oops, our bad" and not deal with the same kind of loss a buyer will. They promised something EXTREMELY SPECIFIC and without that exact thing being there on day one of opening, they will have failed to fulfill their end of the contract. It's pretty basic