Complaint Review: Steven G. English Attorney At Law - Crystal Lake Illinois

Take a deep breath, man, you're gonna throw a bolt. Okay, so you're not Steven English. I don't personally give a flying one who you are, however I think I can be forgiven for wondering why someone whose character isn't being called into question would defend another so adamantly. Steven G. English still sounds like a rat. You, "Steve", are just sad.

All of these legal postings can be best explained by the revelation that lawyers listen to Dr. Laura.

Debra, you did indeed take a risk by making a very broad assumption, whether or not it had the effect you suggest is up to you. Since you have logged on to this site, I'm sure you are aware it is intended to be confidential, however, the site requires me to login my personal information, and I'm sure if they chose to the site could confirm I am not Steven English (although I am NOT giving consent to the site to release my personal information). It is entirely a coincidence Mr. English and I have the same first name. Please note from the postings, Mr. English's office and mine are in different cities in the same state. We both practice real estate law, although we each practice other areas of law we do not have in common. Actually, I am aware of at least two other Steves who practice real estate law in the same city as I do,and at least a dozen other Steves who practice real estate law in the area between our offices. With a little on-line research, you could probably narrow down who I might be to a few attorneys, none of which is Mr. English. So why have I spent so much time trying to explain these matters? 1. Mr. English is right, the original poster is wrong. That is itself enough. Please note that several people of different occupations have posted that Mr. English acted correctly, yet for some reason, that doesn't seem to be enough for those desperately insisting the lawyer must be wrong, up to no good, etc. The original poster's own attorney indicated the actions of Mr. English and his client, although not to his liking, were permissible. 2. I had hoped the original poster might listen to additional information from a knowledgeable third party before she caused more trouble for herself and Mr. English by persisting in libeling Mr. English (which, by the way, is unethical, in bad faith, and actionable. The original poster is actually doing the things she complains Mr. English has done). 3. Mr. English and Mr. Woodbury (the original poster's attorney) are both known to me. Although I do not know either of them socially, they have been the other party's attorney on transactions I have handled. I know both of them, from direct experience (unlike everyone else posting here) to be skilled, competent, courteous and ETHICAL attorneys, and just plain good people. I simply feel a moral obligation to correct the untrue statements expressed by the original poster (who is also not providing her identity). While I understand her statements are a result of her emotions caused from her not receiving the desired result, it has blinded her to the fact, as she admits in her second posting, the contract permits everything that has transpired. Her emotions are not justification for retaliating by denigrating Mr. English's reputation, when she clearly lacks the neutrality, knowledge or desire to provide accurate information. The attorneys did their jobs and represented their clients well. Although the original poster has the right to FEEL as she wishes, when she published those untruthful accusations to others, she behaved unethically and commited a wrong. 4. I hoped to explain the legal issues sufficiently that other readers, who may have been through the same situation (as some of my clients have, on both sides of having the contract disapproved) would have a better understanding of the issues. 5. I have found that most people who blindly attack the legal profession do so out of a lack of knowledge, or retaliation for some past grudge against a lawyer (frequently because they did not like the result of a legal proceeding, or because their lawyer attempted to prevent them from acting unwisely). I believe my profession does not do an adequate job of countering these uninformed attacks by providing detailed and correct information. 6. Finally, I must admit, there has been some entertainment value in the responses of posters like Darren and Thomas. Making attacks against people they don't know, without any knowledge of the law involved, and with utter disregard for the facts. My goodness, to make such inflamed statements without ever providing any useful information to the original poster. I hope this forum has provided an outlet for their misplaced rage. Far from hurting my feelings, watching Darren flail about has been good for big belly laughs. I am pleased he is willing to be a fool for my amusement, as he satisfies the following definitions of fool, as provided by Funk & Wagnall's dictionary: 1. A person lacking understanding, judgment or common sense. 2. A clown formerly kept by noblemen for household entertainment; jester. 3. To waste time on trifles; putter. 4. To loiter about idly. 5. To meddle with. Perhaps I have been guilty of fooling with Darren, again as defined by Funk & Wagnall: 1. To play or toy aimlessly with something stupid or silly. Debra, I'm sure if he learns of it, Steve English will find it as funny as I to learn you have suggested we are the same person. If you could see the two of us in the same room you would certainly see the entertainment value in that assumption, as we look nothing alike. I had not intended to post here again, but I thought I would clear up your presumption. Although it's been a pleasant diversion, I can't justify spending any more time on this, so I won't be posting again, no matter how hard Darren and Thomas try to provoke me (as this is text only, please picture flicking mildly annoying gnats).

I'm going to make an assumption here, at the risk of making an a*s of, at least, myself. I find it amusing that "Steve" goes to such tremendous lengths to defend the actions of "Steven" English. I'm sure it was obvious that "Steve" was "Steven", but why did he feel it necessary to defend himself so vigorously without identifying himself as the maligned attorney. The non-deal, as it went down, might very well have been perfectly legal, but it appears that the buyer was willing to do just about anything to purchase the home and still lost out, most likely due to the advice of "Steven". Was there more money in it for "Steven" if the second buyer's offer was accepted? We'll never know. But "Steve's" unwillingness to at least own up about his identity while going to the wall for "Steven" makes me think there are other things he'd rather people didn't know about.

I am not an attorney. Personally I think most are unscrupulous, dishonest, unethical and immoral. If I were involved in this matter, this is what I would do. 1. Can you prove that Steve English made this deal go sour for you? 2. if you can, you need to go to the following website, it is for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disaplinary Commission, the arm of the Illinois Supreme Court that disaplines attorneys for Unethical, Immoral and Dishonest dealings "involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation". www.iardc.org The complaint form is on their website. I would not hesitate to complain about this man. If you do submit a complaint to the ARDC, the attorney must respond to the complaint. You will need to educate yourself on the rules for displining an attorney and follow the rules to get the complaint you have against HIM heard. If you do not follow the steps and procedures, nothing will happen. You will need to do some reading at one of the local librarys. You need to know which of the professional rules he broke on professionl conduct and ethical behavior. I would probably also accuse him of FRAUD. The Illinois Supreme Court, in In re Eugene Lee Armentrout etal., 99 Ill.2d 242, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983) has defined fraud by any officer of the court, whether attorney or judge,as "Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including "***anything calculated to deceive, *** whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture." Here are two rules which from what I have read it sounds like Mr. English broke. Rule 8.4(a)(3) forbids lawyers from committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on their trustworthiness, honesty or fitness as an attorney. 134 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(3). Rule 8.4(a)(4) bars lawyers from engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. 134 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(4). Your attoney may also have been involved in how this transaction went down seeing that he kept wanting you to come up with more money. You have to remember that an attorneys main objective is to get your money. I am not saying that he was involved, but chances are pretty good that he was from my experience in dealing with attorneys. If your attorney believes that Steven English was engaged in UNETHICAL behavior and told you so, he has a DUTY to report the misconduct to the Illinois Attorney and Registration Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) and that duty is absolute, not discretionary. That was the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill.2d 214, 246 Ill.Dec. 324, 730 N.E.2d 4 (2000). Hope I did not confuse you or lead you astray. But if this attorney did this, he needs to be punished.

Thanks John, Yes, actually I was baiting Steve. I should be ashamed of myself and I am quite grown up thank you very much. Steve professes to give strictly professional legal advice. Yet, I still contend that the person was attacked by Steve personally... which I have itemized above. To make offers dependant on changes as his lawyer advised is pretty standard? He stated that the lawyer was the one advising these changes. Correct? They how can Steve turn them around and say that HE was the problem? Just as the original poster had "feelings" which were blown of by Steve I thought that I would see how he handled his feelings beeing hurt.. Thus, the "p***k" comment. I think that I proved my point that he really really did not like that. I should have expecte something like a Dr. Laura analogy. I have listened to her for years... and she is for "entertainment" purposes only. She may have points which I agree with (a lot actually) but she does use a blunt instrument to beat callers over the head with. She too is unable to handle it when she is called to task. Normally I am not a person that baits. I have defended lawyers on this site. I have also posted an article where our county DA has just been convicted and sentanced to 58 months for taking bribes from a lawyer. http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug04/248324.asp This isn't something that happened a long time ago. It is in the news today. Lawyers should present the highest legal and ethical bahavior because it is the Law which makes us such a great nation. It appears that lawyers seen to "feel" under seige... therefore, when someone does question a lawyers ethics then it becomes a person that is attacking ALL lawyers.... which I did as a matter of fact. Also, it is people that make up this nation. Most people do not have a good grasp of the law. Therefore we depend on lawyers to assist us... and yes, even hold our hands. Just as with doctor, a laywer is dealing with someone that is way out of their league and looking at a serious life changing moment. I don't think that it is too much to ask for a lawyer to give compassionate attention to a client. Even if the client has lost. Most people can understand that the lawyer did his/her best. I think that this whole problem never would have been brought to this site if there had been better communication between the lawyer and the client. Since it is the lawyer that is the professional and is paid by the client to represent him... who has the obligation? But, just as a doctor wouldn't say, "You have colon cancer, get used to it." I wouldn't expect a lawyer to say, "You lost the house, they did it legally, now go and I will send you the bill." There needs to be a trust of the law and those sworn to be officers of the court. You will see it from your point of view, I will see it from mine. Thanks for figuring it out John.

Thanks John, Yes, actually I was baiting Steve. I should be ashamed of myself and I am quite grown up thank you very much. Steve professes to give strictly professional legal advice. Yet, I still contend that the person was attacked by Steve personally... which I have itemized above. To make offers dependant on changes as his lawyer advised is pretty standard? He stated that the lawyer was the one advising these changes. Correct? They how can Steve turn them around and say that HE was the problem? Just as the original poster had "feelings" which were blown of by Steve I thought that I would see how he handled his feelings beeing hurt.. Thus, the "p***k" comment. I think that I proved my point that he really really did not like that. I should have expecte something like a Dr. Laura analogy. I have listened to her for years... and she is for "entertainment" purposes only. She may have points which I agree with (a lot actually) but she does use a blunt instrument to beat callers over the head with. She too is unable to handle it when she is called to task. Normally I am not a person that baits. I have defended lawyers on this site. I have also posted an article where our county DA has just been convicted and sentanced to 58 months for taking bribes from a lawyer. http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug04/248324.asp This isn't something that happened a long time ago. It is in the news today. Lawyers should present the highest legal and ethical bahavior because it is the Law which makes us such a great nation. It appears that lawyers seen to "feel" under seige... therefore, when someone does question a lawyers ethics then it becomes a person that is attacking ALL lawyers.... which I did as a matter of fact. Also, it is people that make up this nation. Most people do not have a good grasp of the law. Therefore we depend on lawyers to assist us... and yes, even hold our hands. Just as with doctor, a laywer is dealing with someone that is way out of their league and looking at a serious life changing moment. I don't think that it is too much to ask for a lawyer to give compassionate attention to a client. Even if the client has lost. Most people can understand that the lawyer did his/her best. I think that this whole problem never would have been brought to this site if there had been better communication between the lawyer and the client. Since it is the lawyer that is the professional and is paid by the client to represent him... who has the obligation? But, just as a doctor wouldn't say, "You have colon cancer, get used to it." I wouldn't expect a lawyer to say, "You lost the house, they did it legally, now go and I will send you the bill." There needs to be a trust of the law and those sworn to be officers of the court. You will see it from your point of view, I will see it from mine. Thanks for figuring it out John.

Thanks John, Yes, actually I was baiting Steve. I should be ashamed of myself and I am quite grown up thank you very much. Steve professes to give strictly professional legal advice. Yet, I still contend that the person was attacked by Steve personally... which I have itemized above. To make offers dependant on changes as his lawyer advised is pretty standard? He stated that the lawyer was the one advising these changes. Correct? They how can Steve turn them around and say that HE was the problem? Just as the original poster had "feelings" which were blown of by Steve I thought that I would see how he handled his feelings beeing hurt.. Thus, the "p***k" comment. I think that I proved my point that he really really did not like that. I should have expecte something like a Dr. Laura analogy. I have listened to her for years... and she is for "entertainment" purposes only. She may have points which I agree with (a lot actually) but she does use a blunt instrument to beat callers over the head with. She too is unable to handle it when she is called to task. Normally I am not a person that baits. I have defended lawyers on this site. I have also posted an article where our county DA has just been convicted and sentanced to 58 months for taking bribes from a lawyer. http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug04/248324.asp This isn't something that happened a long time ago. It is in the news today. Lawyers should present the highest legal and ethical bahavior because it is the Law which makes us such a great nation. It appears that lawyers seen to "feel" under seige... therefore, when someone does question a lawyers ethics then it becomes a person that is attacking ALL lawyers.... which I did as a matter of fact. Also, it is people that make up this nation. Most people do not have a good grasp of the law. Therefore we depend on lawyers to assist us... and yes, even hold our hands. Just as with doctor, a laywer is dealing with someone that is way out of their league and looking at a serious life changing moment. I don't think that it is too much to ask for a lawyer to give compassionate attention to a client. Even if the client has lost. Most people can understand that the lawyer did his/her best. I think that this whole problem never would have been brought to this site if there had been better communication between the lawyer and the client. Since it is the lawyer that is the professional and is paid by the client to represent him... who has the obligation? But, just as a doctor wouldn't say, "You have colon cancer, get used to it." I wouldn't expect a lawyer to say, "You lost the house, they did it legally, now go and I will send you the bill." There needs to be a trust of the law and those sworn to be officers of the court. You will see it from your point of view, I will see it from mine. Thanks for figuring it out John.

I've been reading the exchanges on this particular item and wanted to offer my two cents. I'm sorry the original complainant missed out on this house. However, I don't see anything that indicate that the seller's attorney did anything unethical. The seller's attorney owes a duty of loyalty to the seller, not the buyer. We don't know what advice the seller's attorney gave and we don't even know if the seller followed the attorney's advice. It sounds as if the seller (or seller's attorney) wasn't comfortable with the buyer's requested negotiating points after the inspection. It sounds like the seller got a better price and backed out per the terms of the contract. Unfortunate? Yes. Illegal or unethical? Not based on what has been posted here.

Steve, Darren, Tim, M, et al, WOW, what a lot of mud-slinging. Steve, I take you to take for allowing yourself to be baited by Darren. He seems to have taken pleasure in getting a rise out of you. I the future, I'd respectufully suggest that you simply consider the source, and avoid being baited into a schoolyard slugfest. I believe, [based upon your name, profession, specialty and location] I have worked with you in the past, and, if you are the Steve I am thinking of, I have found you and your work to be quite satisfactory, both in terms of legal representation, as well as personal interface. Tim, I agree with you that attorneys and all service professions could sometimes use a lesson in personal interaction. In the case at hand, however, it seems quite clear that the original poster had an axe to grind. She had undergone an experience that while unpleasant, disheartening, and distressing, was perfectly legal. In Steve's first reply, he could have softened the tone a bit, but his comments were pointed and accurate, even if they were not what the writer wanted to hear. Darren, I won't dignify your comments by addressing them directly. I'll simply say- GROW UP. To everyone involved: I think the original poster had an axe to grind, and went on a vicious (and libelous) attack to vent her frustrations and feelings. Steve's original post, while unpleasant, put this writer in her place-- i.e. Don't libel someone because you didn't like the deal you got. If exercising a legal option in a contract becomes "unethical", "rip-off" behavior, then we are all in a great deal of trouble, indeed. While M may not have liked what happened, from everything I have read here, everything was within the boundaries of law, even if the result did not correspond with M's interpretation of 'Fair Play'. We are all responsible for our own behavior, and as such, must take responsiblilty for it. We hire attorneys to act as advisors and counsel, but in the end, when we take pen to paper, WE are the ones responsible to understand what is contained therein. 'Nuff Said, I think.

I read in the real estate transactions section of the local paper that the house sold for the exact amount of my second offer. My realtor suggested the amount for the second offer, I told him I think we should go higher, he said no. The reason the first signed contract was disapproved was because of a higher offer. The reason my second offer/contract was not accepted was because it was not enough. I just received a certified cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Steven G. English claiming "libel per se" demanding that I recant, retract and withdraw my statements and provide a written apology to Mr. English. The Rip Off Report does not remove/withdraw postings, so I would like to recant and retract the following words from my original report: ripoff Dishonest and unethical Gross abuse I know it most certainly can not be Ethical or in Good Faith.

I'm going to keep it short and unproductive. Your points are well reasoned and well taken, Steve. I stand by my original statements, but I hope that you don't take them as uninformed judgments about how you conduct your practice. I know nothing about how you conduct your business and have no reason to assume that you are anything short of a fine attorney. Any comments I have made are limited to the substance of this report and its rebuttals. Thank you for the well reasoned and thoroughly engrossing discourse.

Tim, your comments would be completely correct, except both you and Darren wish to read into my responses your own presumptions. I ask both of you to consider the context of this forum. The original poster has already had the benefit of the representation of capable counsel. My purpose is to give the poster concise information which she has not already received. As an example, look at Dr. Laura's radio show. In that context, she has 2-3 minutes to give the caller a blunt assessment of the situation. She does not have the full background information to conduct therapy. She does not have the time to be diplomatic. In the context of the format of her radio show, she must give the caller information that their own therapist, friends, etc., may not be able to give as bluntly. Thus, for those like Darren who are willing to make assumptions as to what she SHOULD do, as opposed to what the forum PERMITS her to do, feel she is not sufficiently sensitive. Again, that is not what she is there for. In the same manner, neither Tim or Darren can possibly know the tenor of my interactions with my clients. In that forum, I have all the background information. I can take the time to present it in the most delicate manner. I have the benefit of being able to directly observe that person. None of that is true in this forum. The point of my response to the original poster was to give her a possibility that was not being presented to her. It was blunt, but intended to be blunt, so that if this was indeed what was going on, it could be corrected for their next transaction. Interestingly, no one questions the validity of my position, but rather the manner. That, again, is not the purpose of this website. I certainly provided the original poster far more consideration, and was far less rude, than Darren's taunts and vulgarity, in which he evidently takes great pride. Tim, you cannot possibly judge my practice in the context of this forum. I do not forget my clients in the pursuit of the law. But keep in mind, you do not serve your client's best interest by forgetting the law in pursuit of clients. Which do you think best serves the client's best interest (not yours, because as lawyers, unlike Darren, what is best for others, not ourselves, comes first)? Which is better in the long run for the client, for the client to have received accurate information they might not want to hear, or for the client to not receive accurate information in the hopes of keeping them happy? I can tell you you won't lose your license for not being sensitive, but you can lose your license for not giving your client the full benefit of your knowledge, no matter how unpleasant. Clearly, the original poster either did not receive, or did not understand, or did not want to understand, all the information regarding their transaction. We have travelled far afield from the original poster's question and oddly enough, that person has had little to say about my comments. Nowhere did the original poster state they were offended by my feedback. Tim, I think you can learn two important things from these postings, if you intend to practice transactional law, at least in residential real estate. First, the "default", if you will, is to blame the lawyer. Six months after the transaction, if the hot water heater goes out, many people will want to blame the lawyer, even though he never viewed the property. Not the realtor, who found the house. Not the home inspector, who didn't find a defect in the hot water heater. In fact, there may not have been a problem with the heater at all at the time of closing, but in their mind, it's still your fault. I stand by my original remarks, even though this contract worked exactly as intended, and Mr. English followed his client's (and perhaps the realtor's) wishes and obtained their goals, he ends up the scapegoat for doing his job as he was supposed to. Second, Tim, is that there are a lot of Darrens out there, whose only interest is to badmouth lawyers. Note Darren was not even attempting to assist the original poster, no, he was far more interested in attacking me. Note he revels in his own admitted ignorance. Any attempt to communicate the benefit of the education and experience you have spent thousands of dollars and spent years of hard work and study to acquire, will be met by jeering. He believes spelling to be "a parlor trick", but if, God forbid, there was a spelling error that made a substantive difference in a legal document, he would be the first to file a malpractice action. He has the arrogance to presume arrogance on the part of others. He has a complete inability to present a cogent, logical argument, but rather can only engage in the equivalent of 5th grade schoolyard discourse. Tim, the danger of such people is you will be trained to deal in facts and the law. The Darrens of this world do not want justice. Has he treated me with the care and respect he demands of me? No, rather, everyone must cater to what he "feels", which he gets to define. Any attempt to explain the facts and the law will fall on deaf ears, as what it all boils down to is, it doesn't matter what anyone else wants, what the facts support, what the law says, you are telling them they aren't going to get what they want, and that makes you a bad lawyer. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's a waste of time teaching a pig to sing, all you do is annoy the pig. Unless there is something new to say regarding the original poster's problem, which is expressed with the civility and basic manners Tim has shown and Darren has not, this thread has strayed so far from the source, it is no longer productive.

Since the EDitor's criteria contains the hook that only "solid, productinve criticism" will be accepted in rebuttals, I usually stay away from a report once it becomes nothing more than a grudge fest, but I think there is a solid, productive comment to be made here. We all understand now that the contract in question is voidable for a certain period of time, and that the seller exercised this option for one reason or another, most likely within the bounds of the law. But Steve, YOU started this off by making comments that were downright MEAN and DISTASTEFUL. Perhaps, as a practitioner in a field of law that is largely transactional, you have completely lost sight of the fact that on the other side of all those forms is a real, live person with aspirations and emotions. Why the demeaning response to a person who feels victimized by a legal experience that, in her situation, may have been inherently unfair? The law seeks fairness, but it doesn't always accomplish it, and some people will rightly feel victimized by such an imperfect system. Does this speak to some personal fault? NO! It's a simple element of humanity to feel that when an important, and seemingly secure, transaction fails for no other apparent reason than somebody just didn't like you, and a system of law that is supposed to protect you against such occurences fails to do so, that you will be a little down in the dumps. Clients don't understand the law, clients FEEL the law. It's your job to understand the law. A function of that, ideally, should be the ability to convey an understanding of the law to the person who does not understand it but nonetheless feels the effects. I'm sure that M is probably a little better off for having read your comments. Hopefully her naivety has been replaced with the cold, hard reality of transactional law. But there was certainly a more tactful way that you could have gone about conveying such an understanding than "there is something about YOU, YOU PERSONALLY, that made the Seller decide to forego a higher purchase price to not do business with YOU." Perhaps your analysis was correct, perhaps it wasn't. It most certainly was degradingly superfluous. All that needed to be said was that the contract could be cancelled for any reason outside of discrimination or price, and whatever the real reason was, as long as it wasn't one of those, no laws were broken. To my fellow students of the law: take note of this report and its rebuttals. This is what happens when the precision and technicality of the law blind you to the fact the law does not exist in a vacuum, but rather consists of real people and their relations with one another. Maybe my analysis is naive, and I know that any time the law doesn't go somone's way they will be dissatisfied, perhaps less than rightfully most of the time. But a lawyer shouldn't be like a bad waiter who is so blinded by the frivolous complaints that he treats people who are legitimately, though not legally, done wrong like ignorant whiners.

Hey Stevie!!!! I am so glad to see that you FINALLY decided to agree with me! You are right, Machelle's response was respectufl, professional, compassionate and informative. Nowhere in her reply did she feel a need to attack, blame or call the person any name. Heck, I don't think that she even needed to CAPITALIZE any words to emphasize that the poster was a malcontent, VICTIM or someone that was so unpleasant that a person would be willing to back out of a contract to avoid. Now, doesn't it feel good to admit your fault and agree? Now see, if you would have done that from the begining then there would have never been a desire for me to respond to you! Thank you so much for finally admitting that you were not respectful to the original poster. That shows an incredible amount of growth. Maybe there is hope for you!!!!

See, Darren? Machelle has a helpful response. Not a personal attack. Or "hahahahahaha", which only reflects the immaturity of your entire line of postings. If you want respect, be respectful.

I'm sorry you lost your dream home. Unfortunatley we run across more than a few unethical people in this business. Our board contracts call for both the attorney review period and the home inspection to be done within 5 business days. This is always a shaky time for any contract, and it can be cancelled for any reason. I always tell my clients when they lose one, something better comes along and it always happens. One more bit of advice. Unless you like hot air, stay away from the balloons. :) And know that once realtors have that reputation we don't like to entertain their offers or show their listings if we can avoid it. He may have cost himself more than you lost.

I'm sorry you lost your dream home. Unfortunatley we run across more than a few unethical people in this business. Our board contracts call for both the attorney review period and the home inspection to be done within 5 business days. This is always a shaky time for any contract, and it can be cancelled for any reason. I always tell my clients when they lose one, something better comes along and it always happens. One more bit of advice. Unless you like hot air, stay away from the balloons. :) And know that once realtors have that reputation we don't like to entertain their offers or show their listings if we can avoid it. He may have cost himself more than you lost.

I'm sorry you lost your dream home. Unfortunatley we run across more than a few unethical people in this business. Our board contracts call for both the attorney review period and the home inspection to be done within 5 business days. This is always a shaky time for any contract, and it can be cancelled for any reason. I always tell my clients when they lose one, something better comes along and it always happens. One more bit of advice. Unless you like hot air, stay away from the balloons. :) And know that once realtors have that reputation we don't like to entertain their offers or show their listings if we can avoid it. He may have cost himself more than you lost.

I'm sorry you lost your dream home. Unfortunatley we run across more than a few unethical people in this business. Our board contracts call for both the attorney review period and the home inspection to be done within 5 business days. This is always a shaky time for any contract, and it can be cancelled for any reason. I always tell my clients when they lose one, something better comes along and it always happens. One more bit of advice. Unless you like hot air, stay away from the balloons. :) And know that once realtors have that reputation we don't like to entertain their offers or show their listings if we can avoid it. He may have cost himself more than you lost.

Boy Steve, You really do take yourself serious... don't you? Hehehehe. That is only to be expected. Oh, you know what? I believe that spelling has as much to do with intelligence as being able to balance on one leg, patting your head and rubbing your belly. Spelling is really nothing more than a parlor trick. Intelligences can be measured and appreciated in many forms... mathmatical, linguistic, visual, spatial... I have found from live that people that jump on someone's spelling is making a desperate attempt to shut a person down. Even us stupid people got some learning. You never did respond to the part about there being a "nice" way and a "less than nice" way to give someone the bad news. My whole contention was that even though you may have given good advice (which I can't know because I am not a lawyer and I only have your word to go on)used CAPITAL LETTERS to suggest that the person asking the qustions was a FEELING LIKE A VICTIM and suggesting that maybe THEY WERE THE PROBLEM. Don't you see? Alas. You are incapable of even conceeding that. As you ask the VICTIM if they feel better being told they are a VICTIM, do you feel better belittling a person that way? Yes, I attacked. I will stand by my begining assertion that you are a bully. Maybe in a 3 piece suit, but you are no different than a bully. If your child comes to you with a scraped knee do you snear and mock him and call him a whiner? Expecting civil treatment and respect from someone that you are paying to work on a problem... that is wrong? Courtsy? Is that extra? Or maybe that is two doors down? If I do need a lawyer you can be sure that I will not hire one who's underlying first assumption is that I am wrong/guilty/dishonest. Because, if a person feels wronged, then it is probably because they are dishonest and are upset because someone didn't allow themselves to be used. Right? I tell you what... if you are so worried about the terms of this site being abused... then simply contact the ED and ask him to review and if I am wrong, ban me. That would be your "legal recourse." As we agree, words have meaning and they also have interpretation as we are most definitely seeing here. Isn't that really what you do? Evaluate and interpret the meaning of words? Are your feelings being hurt? Yes, obviously. Do the words that I say reach the level of "abuse." As I look above my little old text box here it says that productive criticism is accepted. I do believe that mine falls under that heading. But, maybe we should leave it up to the courts? Geee, you must be getting a bit hot under the collar... attacking my mother, my spelling my and my need to be weaned. hehehehehe. I am so glad that you as a "professional" don't stoop to the level of attacking someone personally. Or do you? I guess you are right though about the marrying a lawyer versus a "copier salesman" but that only goes to show the sorry state of the world we are in. Also, from this statement it seems to me as if you came into this profession as a means of prestige. No? Everyone should have a professional pride in what they do? Everyone but a "copier repairman?" Your declaration concerning your empathy/symapthy towards your clients leaves me cold. Sorry... Uh-Uh. Nope. Just isn't hitting the emotional cords there that strike true to my heart. Nowhere in here have I seen a bit of humanity. Sorry... I looked. You constantly refered to the original poster as a person WHO HAS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLT (oooops, typo) WRONG WITH THEM (paraphrased), you mention a person's concerns as immature and suggest that I get my hand held by a mechanic. FEEL LIKE A VICTIM which is the new way of telling a person that compassion is not included and that they should just suck it up. *"Again, the application of logic here suggests there can only be one reason for the cancellation, there is something about YOU, YOU PERSONALLY, that made the Seller decide to forego a higher purchase price to not do business with YOU. *"I have generally found the persons who complain loudest about being cheated, who refuse to recognize there may be legitimate reasons for actions, do so because they are spending THEIR lives cheating others, and cannot understand that not everyone else is as dishonest as they are. People do not spend the time and effort you have described avoiding doing business with likable people. *"The only thing we can "know" for sure from your account is you want to FEEL LIKE A VICTIM. OK, I hope you FEEL better, it doesn't make it so. I wonder what behavior on YOUR part may have contributed to this situation." *"Clearly, the person receiving the benefit of all this was the seller, and again, the finger seems to point back at there being something about YOU that makes all this extra work worth it to not have to sell to YOU." Sigh... I know, I know Steve... those are taken out of context. You really are a caring individual and professional. A person questioning a lawyer's actions is, in your opinion, a whiner, whimp, not weaned from momma, da-da-da. In the above, you very nicely couched the fact that you are accusing the person with being dishonest. I know... you went to school to learn how to say mean and nasty and "vile" things without being heald accountable. I wanna be a doctor, but I don't want to work with sick people... I wanna be a teacher but I don't want to work with kids... I wanna be a lawyer but I don't want to work with people that are in pain, fearful or angry. Expert legal systems can be created professions using a simple if, then or else rule. If that is all you are, then again... I really do believe that I am right here... you need to look at something like Corporate law where those silly nasty emotions are not so prevelant. You know, you can tell someone that 2+4=4 and give them the information, or you can tell them that 2+2=4 and they are a whining, coniving, schemer who has something personally WRONG with THEM. They didn't go to school and choose the profession to be able to determine the answer for themselves so they must be stupid. You mention flat rate... and the lawyer needing to not put too much time into something or he loses money on it? Bottom line. Right? I tell you what. I conceed (sp?). I give up. You are RIGHT and I am wrong. You are superior and I am an intellectually inferior, immature loser with barely an 8th grade education. I actually live in the basement of my mother's house and I am just jealous as I have to wash all those Lexus' down at the car wash each day. I wet my bed and chew my nails. I am less than a man than you are and I meekly go back under the rock that I crawled out of. Before that, I need to get my car worked on (hand holding extra) and I need to schedule an appointment for someone to deal with my self esteem. Also, I promise to print out your evaluation of me and dedicate my evening meditation on your insightful analysis of what is wrong with me. Then I shall use each day to become the person that would make you proud. See, I can take constructive criticism! (Please do me a favor... allow me to have the last word, I am sure that it will do wonders for my self-esteem and all. Come on, you can show everyone what a big man you are by letting me get in the last word.) Hahahahahaha.

Again, Darren, you've missed the point, although you do acknowledge your statements were a personal attack, and you do admit you violated the terms of this site with inappropriate offensive and insulting language (hmmm, I wonder whether the webmaster of this site contacted you regarding your language, which evidently THEY find important, even though you try to dismiss it as a "little thing"). You also admit your mother taught you better. Evidently you listen to her as well as you read my statements. Further, Darren, you again fail to contribute anything to the original poster, but fall back on, frankly, your own personal vendetta and whining. Yes, I made assumptions, that is part of forming an OPINION. I offered the poster insight, perhaps incorrect, but, as you acknowledge, the basis of my experience and training. You have the arrogance to presume this is arrogance. These are written words. You cannot presume to know the full emotional context in which they were written, as they are missing the various verbal and nonverbal cues that would provide that context. The fact I have "superior" knowledge and experience does not mean I am arrogantly asserting superiority, or implying the poster is inferior. I didn't refer to you or the poster as "stupid" or "ignorant", but I am curious why you are so eager to use those terms to refer to yourself. Why do you have such low self-esteem you automatically assume when someone with specialized knowledge attempts to share it, that we are being a "bully". You don't know me, you don't know my clients. If you did know my clients, they would tell you (as I have heard this feedback from others in the community, as well as my clients frequent referrals to me) that one of my strengths as an attorney is my sensitivity to their feelings. Unfortunately, in a purely written context, the poster cannot benefit from that. But I am a lawyer, and you cannot belittle "an interpretation of the law." Although I do it, it is NOT my job to try to emotionally reconcile my clients to their legal affairs. That is properly the purview of mental health professionals, but I suppose you would find a therapist or counselor sharing their expertise to be bullying or arrogant. It is my job to interpret the law. The poster is concerned with a contract action, it is the lawyer's job to interpret the contract. You seem to want to be nursed at the same time, but what you NEED is to be weaned. Really, Darren, you haven't helped the original poster at all, you've just vented your own personal prejudices. Fine, you don't like lawyers. Next time you have a legal problem, handle it yourself. Don't go to a lawyer. As the saying goes, then you would truly have a fool for a client. As to "suggesting litigation", please note that it was another poster that suggested the original poster litigate this contract issue. That was bad advice, as I have made clear above (and I note you do not challenge my professional opinion). What you refer to as my recommendation of "vile litigation" (again, you gild the lily, you seem to have a fixation on extreme hyperbole, but I have found when a person lacks any rational, logical argument, they fall back on emotionally charged adjectives) was intended as a warning. In my professional opinion, the original poster's comments satisfy all the elements of per se libel. I see no legal reason Mr. English, if he chose to do so, could not readily sue the original poster for substantial damages. If attorneys were truly "cold-blooded", he would do so. For all your insults, although many people are fond of denigrating attorneys, I have yet to hear someone brag "Guess what, my daughter is marrying a copier repairman." Your attack only reveals your personal prejudices. You make unfounded assumptions. You discount my practice, my entire profession, while acknowledging your ignorance (by the way, check your spelling of ignorance and wimp) of these matters. You refer to the terms of the contract as "little things." Evidently, you believe how you feel about the law is more important than the terms of the law. Next time you take your car in for repair, I suggest you ask the mechanic to hold your hand through that stressful experience. Oddly enough, you attempt to assert your self-labeled "inferiority" as superiority. Keep referring to yourself as a peasant, and don't be surprised if you become one.

Hi Steve, You are right... I did attack. Reading your arrogant answers to people's comments was enough to bring my blood to a boil. I dislike arrogance such as your's (everyone else is an idiot and you are superior to them all). If you don't believe me, then go back and reread your replies just as I went back and read my reply in the frame of your reference. As a matter of fact, my mother did teach all those neat things. She also defined a bully which allowed me to spot you so quickly. Language is an amazing thing. Words develop, change, take on new meanings. As a lawyer I am sure that you are aware of the need for precise words to convey exactly what is intended. I intentionally said "p***k" because of all the connotations of the word. Precise and powerful. I don't cloak my abuse of others in qualified innuendo that you do. You have to be careful, we here are all the "stupid and ingnorant" masses, not the quick witted and intellectualy superior people like you are. We need to keep it simple. p***k: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous. (www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn) You made numerous assumptions in your initial reply. Below they are listed. I also noted that you assumed that the lawyer "devoted extra effort." "...YOU were such a pain no amount of money could entice them to sell their house to you." "... your realtor showed you a house you couldn't afford. Again, maybe YOU WERE THE PROBLEM." "I wouldn't be surprised to learn you didn't pay, or were reluctant to pay, your attorney for his services." "(... I'll bet you refused to pay him for your time because you didn't get what you wanted." There is no need for me to go through the number of other instances in other replies where you are rude and condescending to others. I will however comment on why people dislike lawyers so much when you suggest vile lawsuits against someone, "The buyer was making false and libelous statements (perhaps Mr. English would be interested in THAT litigation)." Also, your little blurb about how the site expressly forbids "that nonsense" shows how lawyers love to use those little things as a means to intimidate others and to cloak themselves. You, and others, are free to go back and review them. As an attorney, I am sure that you are aware that you are dealing with people that are going through a very stressful period of their life. They look to you for advice, guidance, and yes... support! Regardless of your wishing that it may not be so... you are dealing with people. Do you have a "No Whimps" clause in your contract with your clients? Is there a list of appropriate feelings and questions that a client is allowed to have for their money? When you deal with people, how do you separate the legal problem from the impact on them? Amazing. If it isn't about feelings, just business, then again I need to suggest that you find another line of work, for your's and any future client's sake. Being someone's "mommy" is a nice way to belittle someone's needs. Feel better? If you are not aware of a client looking to the lawyer to "hold their hand" through their particular process then you shouldn't be working with clients. Just as doctors are becoming aware of treating the whole person instead of just the disease, lawyers should be aware that the people that pay them are needing something more than an "interpretation of the law." If your statements were as you say, PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS and that you were commenting that the buyer didn't give you enough information and that there was probably some personal reason why the seller wouldn't want to do business with the buyer (again with the assumptions instead of giving the buyer the benefit of the doubt), then again I suggest a change of professions. To the original poster... I guess that it just holds true the old adage... "you get what you pay for" and in Steve's case... you did. (Oooops... is that libelous?) No Steve, after review of what I wrote and what you wrote... I will stand by my original posting. Have a nice day!

D certainly has exposed D's own character. D does exactly what D falsely accuses me of - a personal insult and attack (please note, this site expressly states it doesn't want this sort of nonsense). D, I certainly didn't make a personal attack. You are correct, my specialized knowledge DOES make me needed. It makes me worth every dime my clients spend. But part of my job, in addition to understanding my client's feelings, is to know when not to be distracted by emotions and deal with facts. There is a famous saying: "Half of a good lawyer's job is telling his client when he is about to be a d**n fool." The original source of the complaint complained about what they perceived as unethical conduct. I certainly did lay out for that person that the perception was incorrect. I also tried to give that person what, IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, is the probable source of her problem. I won't repeat the logic that can be read above. My professional opinion is that the buyer has not given us all the information, that there is some personal reason that seller did not want to do business with that buyer. Upon further reflection, it is possible, although unlikely, that it wasn't the buyer being disagreeable, perhaps the seller really wanted to sell to the second buyer, perhaps the second buyer was a friend or family member. That's possible but not likely. D, it's clear YOU have a problem with lawyers. Not once did I resort to name calling. Not once did I do anything but suggest there was some reason for ill will between the parties to this transaction. That, again, is my professional opinion from having dealt with these issues before. I also clarified for another correspondent that these issues are PERFECTLY LEGAL reasons to disapprove a contract, given the contract language common to Illinois. Despite my PROFESSIONAL demeanor, you, D, call me a "p***k." You certainly have a First Amendment right to express that opinion. When you do so, however, the rest of us have the First Amendment right to come to the conclusion you resort to this language because you have nothing intelligent to contribute to the discourse. Evidently, your mother didn't teach you if you have nothing nice to say, a potty mouth is not the answer. Another famous quote: "Profanity is the bellwether of an inferior mind." Also, "Constipation of the brain leads to diarrhea of the mouth." D, you've shown your ignorance. You've also shown you are part of the problem. I am not this buyer's mommy. The buyer was making false and libelous statements (perhaps Mr. English would be interested in THAT litigation). I tried to correct that by giving her the benefit of my professional expertise FOR FREE. How does that reconcile your characterization of attorneys as heartless? I tried to give some insight that might help this buyer with future transactions, again, FOR FREE, and that's cold-blooded. D, like many people, you're just looking for an excuse to put someone else down, and lawyers are an easy target. My statements were clear and concise. Your statements have nothing to do with the original complaint. How have you helped, other than to stroke your own ego? As I said in my last message, this isn't about feelings, it's about business. If you want to spend your whole life thinking you're a victim, don't be surprised if you don't end up turning yourself into a victim. D, write back if you have something courteous to say, otherwise, keep a civil tongue in your head. I'm happy with my profession and I'm good at it. I don't need a new career, but you clearly need a new attitude. GOOD LUCK!

Hi Steve: You really do personify the attorney as a "p***k." I am amazed at your unprofessional and personal attack from the very start. Instead of simply stating your points in a clear and concise manner, you instead made it a personal attack. All your efforts since then has been to rationalize your origianl assualt. It seems to me that maybe you have reached the point that a lot of people come to when working in a "service oriented" profession... burn out with working with people. I see it all the time with tech-support and customer-support people. Your first assumption is that the person talking to you is an idiot and don't know anything! This has come through loud and clear through your responses here. Think about this for a moment... I don't want to know all the ins and outs of cars to be able to drive a car. I use experts for that. The same with a computer... I shouldn't have to know how to change IRQ's and memory addresses. When it comes to realty, people shouldn't have to go through years of college and law school and pass the bar to buy a house. That is what they use a lawyer for. Think about that? Without your special knowledge, you would not be needed. Thank you so much for continuing the tradition of lawyers being cold-blooded and heartless people. Ask yourself... legalities aside... was it ethical? I believe the original complaintant was looking for a bit of verification that what was done was wrong. If it was, then a simple, "Unfortunately it is legal. It probably wasn't the best way that things could have happened, and I agree that it is probably unethical. Your lawyer is only able to act within the scope of law and the contract and I believe from what I read, that he acted properly. I hope that you have a better exerience the next time." See? Vaildation of the person's feelings. Explanation of the legal ramifications and limitations of the incident. Simple and easy. Instead you chose to attack for no apparent reason, but that you might want to find a new profession. Good luck!

Tim, the answer is: A contract can be "backed out of" when the terms of the contract itself permit it. In this contract, the attorney review provision keeps the contract ambulatory until that contingency has expired. The parties thus should have full knowledge that the contract is not "locked in" or binding until the expiration of the contingency. Whether they wish to spend time and money during that period is a consumer decision. Usually, the benefit of not paying for a home inspection during the attorney review contingency is outweighed by the risk of not knowing what defects may exist. A more extreme example: this same contract almost certainly had a financing contingency providing if the buyer was unable to obtain financing (with a few other wrinkles we don't have to get into here) by a certain deadline, the contract becomes void and the buyer's earnest money would be returned. Under this scenario, both seller and buyer might spend substantial time and money, RIGHT UP TO THE DAY OF CLOSING, only to have the buyer's lender announce they cannot finance the deal, thus the contract is void. This happens far more frequently than it should. Other contracts frequently have express provisions that could be viewed as "escape clauses." Athlete's contracts frequently contain provisions voiding the contract if the athlete is injured and unable to perform. As long as the contract contains language permitting it, the parties can "back out." Unfortunately, sometimes a party may use a contingency for pretextual motives, such as using the attorney review contingency "because buyer has decided not to buy at this time" when actually "buyer decided he didn't really like the neighbors because they smell funny." Just like the cop who pulled you over because "you crossed the white line several times" actually stopped you because "my gut instinct tells me the Grateful Dead bumper sticker on you VW microbus means there is a high probability I might find a bag of pot under your seat."

Steve, If you are what you say you are, which I assume is true based on your knowledge of terminology, then I defer to your understanding of the subject matter. I'm still getting my feet wet in the field of the law, and try to make clear that my own understanding is thus limited. In a novice analysis of the attorney review clause, I would understand it to mean that the contract was binding at the time of signature, but could be rescinded upon recommendation of the attorney. Given that the parties bound by the contract would likely take steps in reliance upon the instrument (such as the buyer selling her current residence), it would seem that a recommendation of rescision, especially to comport with the requirements of good faith and fair dealings, would have to be based on some sort of fault with the terms of the contract itself. If, however, the attorney review clause serves to suspend enforceability of the contract until the attorney approves it, then the parties do not have a sufficient grounding of faith in the contract to take steps in relaince upon it. Given that you are likely more familiar with the state of the law than I am, I will assume this is the case. In regards to the "spite" issue, I agree that people have the right to choose who they will conduct business with, and that such a decision can ethically and legally be based on a mere dislike. Once a contract is formed, however, hasn't the decision of who to do business with already been made? It seems to me that what you are suggesting is not just that people may choose who to conduct business with based on a mere dislike, a notion that I did not refute, but that people may back out of existing contracts for such reasons. How is any contract enforceable under such a regime? If I can form a contract with somebody, and then decide I don't want to perform, can't I just say that I didn't like the other party? What if the reason I don't like them is because they are trying to enforce the contract? Our entire economy would crumble if spite was a valid contract defense. I'm sure that this is not what you are trying to say, but I think you missed the point of my previous rebuttal. Sure people can choose who to do business with, but freedom of contract also requires that contracts be enforceable, and little as I may know about contract defenses, I do know that spite is not one of them. But, again, I defer to your understanding. Sorry, M, but if your contract was not binding until approved by the seller's attorney, and if price was the only restriction, you're probably out of luck. Unfortunately, legal and ethical do not always equate.

Tim: As these little editorials do not disclose details about the correspondents, you shouldn't make assumptions about the person you are responding to. My knowledge of contract law is not lacking. I am a real estate attorney with a decade of experience having closed approximately 150 transactions per year. What law school did you go to? My response of "Absolutely" cannot be read alone outside the context of the remainder of the paragraph. It is clear from this buyer's account that price was not the motive for the disapproval because this buyer raised the ante, but the seller did not restore the contract. It is clear the inspection requests were not the motive for the cancellation because the seller, under the inspection contingency, need only refuse to make the requested repairs. No, instead the contract was killed under attorney modification. Clearly, the seller had some reason to dislike this buyer. Again, neither price nor requested repairs could have been the problem. As we have eliminated the only motive, price, which is expressly forbidden, then there can be no claim of bad faith. Further, no one has yet to respond to the curious insistence by the buyer that somehow the seller's attorney was unethical. This buyer is merely guessing, and can only guess, at the true motivation, but the attorney clearly invoked a remedy permitted under the contract, and the buyer's own account makes an impermissible reason unlikely. And for your information, what you term "spite", not wanting to do business with someone because you do not like them, is completely legal, so long as the reason you do not like them is not because they are a member of a protected class (race, religion, etc.). It's called free enterprise and capitalism. If you, or your realtor, or your lawyer, or your demands, are a pain in the butt, people are free to choose to not do business with you. Isn't that the purpose of this website? To say the seller cannot cancel the contract under a remedy provided by the contract IS JUST PLAIN WRONG. The legal term is "restraint on alienation" and limiting the free exercise of personal choice in the transfer of real estate has been against public policy for centuries. Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. We've been tossing around this word "cancellation" and that is imprecise. This buyer's contract was not cancelled. The seller's attorney DISAPPROVED the contract. In other words, the contract itself, pursuant to the terms of the attorney review contingency, is not effective until the attorneys either APPROVE the contract or FAIL TO DISAPPROVE the contract. As the only impermissible motive, price, clearly was not the issue (again, buyer's higher offer wasn't accepted), buyer NEVER HAD AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT, AS THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER APPROVED. Again, seller's actions were completely lawful. Seller certainly lost time, and may have lost money, disapproving this contract. Certainly, seller's realtor and attorney lost time and money. Whatever their motive was, there is something about this buyer SO DISAGREEABLE everybody was willing to take a loss to take on another buyer. Keep in mind, the second buyer also had contingencies available, so seller's decision to change buyers was not without risk. To use an example, if I don't sell my house to Dennis Rodman because I think he is unattractive, that is legal. If I don't sell to Dennis because I hate tall people, again, lawful. If I don't sell to Dennis because I didn't appreciate his realtor's attitude, don't like his nose ring, etc., all lawful. If I DISAPPROVE Dennis' contract because he is African-American, or Southern Baptist, unlawful. If I DISAPPROVE Dennis' contract because Michael Jordan offered more, but Dennis DIDN'T offer more, that may be an implication the impermissible "price" motive was the reason, and possibly unlawful. But if I then come forward and offer argument it was because of the nose ring, attitude, bad clothes, etc., it will be very difficult for you to prove otherwise. Litigate this buyer's disapproved contract? Without something more than what the buyer has offered, it's an easy motion to dismiss. So far, I don't see much of a chance of recovery. Again, I think it's far more likely this buyer wants to feel like a victim than this buyer is a victim. The buyer didn't get what they wanted. That doesn't mean the buyer wasn't treated lawfully. Grow up and enter the business world.

Steve, your understanding of contract law is lacking. Not that mine is that great either, but it is clear enough to recognize a couple of flat out erroneous statements, and a general flaw in your reasoning. Earlier M asked if you thought that canceling a contrct due to a higher offer was within the boundaries of good faith and fair dealing, to which you replied "absolutely." Fortunately, most legal scholars disagree with you, and the law reflects that opinion. When a legally binding, mutually assented to contract is formed, it is in no way, shape or form "good faith" to cancel it because a better offer came in. One of the essential reasons for having a system of contrat law is to prevent this kind of thing, or at least to compensate the breached party. If it was acceptable for a party to cancel a contract because they received a better offer, of what value would contracts be? The purpose of a contract is to solidify a deal so that the parties may take a position in reliance upon it. M relied upon her contract to the extent that she lost a great deal of money and time. If the contract was cancelled on the basis of price, which is expressly disallowed by the terms of the contract, then the contract was breached and M should pursue legal recourse. Throughout your rebuttals you assert that there was probably some personal basis for the cancellation of the contract. How is this in good faith? Spite is not a valid reason for cancellation of a contract. It may not rise to the level of discrimination, but it is a breach of the contract nonetheless. If a contract was formed, and subsequently repudiated just because the seller did not like the buyer (which is improbable because the two never met) then the buyer should pursue remedies. The real reason the contract was cancelled may be neither of these. In my cursory examination I would thik that it had something to do with the additional repair requests. Accdording to the common law of contracts proposed additional terms can automatically repudiate the original contract and act as a new offer, which can be accpeted or rejected. I have no idea how the State of Illinois treats this issue. Here is my hypothetical take on the situation. After your contract was formed, a higher offer came in for the property. Your proposed addendum gave the seller the opportunity to repudiate the entire contract with you, which he did. I don't know how an Ilinois court would treat such a case, but your lawyer probably does. have you spoken to him about the feasibility of litigation?

My report included all details and facts of the story. I am not withholding information. My only source of information in this mess was my realtor and lawyer. I did not have contact with the seller, her lawyer or realtor. The seller's only source of information about me was from my realtor and lawyer. If you have evidence that my realtor and/or lawyer did or said something to the seller to make her cancel the contract I would love to know the details. My belief that the seller canceled the contract because of a higher offer is also because that's what Steven English told my lawyer. My lawyer informed me of this conversation by email; see below for my email and my lawyer's response: From: M Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: Attorney Review Paragraph I found the following when doing a search for: (Multi-board Residential Real Estate Contract 3.0 Paragraph 12. Attorney review) 12. ATTORNEY REVIEW: This paragraph is very important and encourages people to enter into contract and then take 5 days to review with their attorney. This paragraph also provides that the price is not subject to further modification. This paragraph provides 5 business days to review the contract and to approve, disapprove or request modifications. (See paragraph 28 requiring good faith and fair dealing.) The paragraph states that Disapproval may not be based solely on the price. This implies the need for some other reasonable basis for not approving. I smell law suites on this provision. 28. CHOICE OF LAW/GOOD FAITH: THIS PARAGRAPH IS VERY IMPORTANT. In addition to Illinois Law controlling, it requires Good Faith and Fair Dealing. This is very important when people are trying to break the contract. To view the entire document click on: http://www.raschelaw.com/understanding_contract.pdf Please let me know if there is anything we can do. Thanks, M From: (my lawyer) To: M Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:33 PM Subject: Attorney Review Paragraph I spoke to the atty and he told me he didnt even consider the HI, all he did was disapprove as his client told him to do and it was based on receipt of a higher offer so even if you had not sent the letter on repairs, it would not have made any difference. How about a letter saying you'll meet or beat the current deal and waive repairs? English said he had no problem if your agent gave the sellers agent another offer.

The only false assumption is yours that the seller cancelled your contract because of the purchase price. Since you offered to increase the purchase price and they did not accept the new proposal, that cannot have been the reason they did not wish to do business with you. The realtor failing to cash your check is only "proof" that the realtor failed to cash the check. It is not relevant to when the seller decided to cancel your contract. Your attorney is correct that inspection contingency requests are common, and ORDINARILY do not result in a contract cancellation, and your attorney clearly protected you from cancellation UNDER THE INSPECTION CONTINGENCY by reserving the right to waive the inspection contingency. Clearly, the Seller wanted rid of YOU so badly, they did not want to risk cancelling UNDER THE INSPECTION CONTINGENCY only to have you waive the inspection contingency, so they cancelled UNDER THE ATTORNEY REVIEW CONTINGENCY, as permitted by the contract. That is what that provision is for, cancellation for ANY reason EXCEPT purchase price. Since they didn't accept your increased purchase price offer (again, you complain your contract was cancelled, but didn't have a problem with soliciting the cancellation of the second buyer's contract) the cancellation under attorney review contingency is on its face proper, unless you can show you were discriminated against because you are a member of a protected class. Despite what appears to be an extreme effort on your attorney's behalf, Seller clearly did not want to do business with you. That is their prerogative. Again, the application of logic here suggests there can only be one reason for the cancellation, there is something about YOU, YOU PERSONALLY, that made the Seller decide to forego a higher purchase price to not do business with YOU. I have generally found the persons who complain loudest about being cheated, who refuse to recognize there may be legitimate reasons for actions, do so because they are spending THEIR lives cheating others, and cannot understand that not everyone else is as dishonest as they are. People do not spend the time and effort you have described avoiding doing business with likable people. Assumptions? YOU state in your original report you "know" the cancellation cannot be "ethical" or "in good faith." You may FEEL this, but as nowhere have you yet to assert any statements by seller, seller's realtor or seller's attorney as to their REASON for cancellation, you cannot possibly "know" anything. You have not shown any violation of the terms of the contract. The only thing we can "know" for sure from your account is you want to FEEL LIKE A VICTIM. OK, I hope you FEEL better, it doesn't make it so. I wonder what behavior on YOUR part may have contributed to this situation. You didn't complain about the seller because they were following the advice of their realtor and their attorney? Why would the realtor want to go through the extra work of a new buyer? OK, maybe because it increased his commission, but then the realtor would also want to take your 2nd offer. Why on earth would Mr. English or your attorney want to go through all this extra work? They get paid a flat fee, not by the hour. All of this reduced the profitability of this transaction for them, going through this hassle did not benefit them at all. Clearly, the person receiving the benefit of all this was the seller, and again, the finger seems to point back at there being something about YOU that makes all this extra work worth it to not have to sell to YOU. If you are still looking to purchase real estate, you should do a little self-exploration and see if you can figure out what there might be about you in this transaction you may be able to correct to make doing business with you more desirable.

1. I note seller cancelled your contract AFTER they received your inspection requests. The sequence of events in my report lists the following facts: We had a verbal agreement on Fri., 1/16 and a signed contract on Sat. 1/17. The earnest money check was to be deposited no later than the next business day, Tues., 1/20. The seller's realtor never deposited the check. The inspection report was faxed to the seller's lawyer Thurs., 1/22. The seller's lawyer faxed the disapproval letter to my lawyer at 5:50 pm on Friday 1/23. The fact that the seller's realtor never deposited the check is proof that my contract was canceled at the latest on Tues, 1/20. I don't know why the seller's lawyer waited until the end of the day on Fri., 1/23 to fax the disapproval letter to my lawyer. 2. Perhaps your inspection requests were trivial and irritated the seller Please review the following from my report: 1/21 I spoke with my lawyer regarding the home inspection and received advise on what items to be concerned about. I asked my lawyer if presenting this information to the seller's lawyer would in any way jeopardize the purchase of the home. My lawyer said this is standard procedure; it will not jeopardize the deal. 1/22 My lawyer faxed the seller's lawyer a letter listing 4 concerns and attached the home inspection which listed 24 items. The letter stated Please accept these requests as items of further negotiation and not as a counter offer. Purchaser maintains the right to withdraw any repair requests. 3. I can't possible know all the details of your transaction from your own self-serving account, but the above logic suggests there is something to this transaction you aren't telling us. The sequence of events in my report lists all details. I don't understand why you assume that I am withholding anything or why you describe my report as self-serving. 4. you complain the ATTORNEY was unethical and dishonest, and not the seller or the seller's realtor. I filed a rip off report on the seller's realtor the same day as I filed the report on the seller's lawyer. I did not file a report on the seller because the seller was following the advice of her realtor and lawyer.

Absolutely. I note your offer of a purchase price higher than the second offer did not change your seller's mind. Accordingly, price must not have been the reason they cancelled your contract. I note seller cancelled your contract AFTER they received your inspection requests. Perhaps your inspection requests were trivial and irritated the seller, or perhaps the second buyer waived their inspection. Regardless, if offering more money didn't change their mind, something else must have made them insist they did not want to do business with you. I can't possible know all the details of your transaction from your own self-serving account, but the above logic suggests there is something to this transaction you aren't telling us. Regardless, the attorney sends the notice to cancel based upon their client's instructions. I note you are complaining about the attorney, not the realtor or the seller. Again, you seem to be focusing on the wrong person. I regret I misread your complaint to state Mr. English was your attorney. However, my comments stand. It appears to me both your attorney and Mr. English have represented their clients well, I am still curious why, since you admit the procedure was followed, you complain the ATTORNEY was unethical and dishonest, and not the seller or the seller's realtor.

Steve, Where did you get the idea that Steve English was my lawyer? My report clearly states A higher offer came in and the seller, with the advice of her realtor (Joe Woodbury of Re/Max of Barrington) and lawyer (Steven G. English), canceled our contract. My lawyer and realtor were just as shocked as I was that the contract was canceled. Condition 12 of the sales contract stated: The respective attorneys for the Parties may approve, disapprove, or make modifications to this Contract, other than stated Purchase Price, within five (5) business days after the Date of Acceptance. Disapproval or modification of this contract shall not be based solely upon stated Purchase Price. Paragraph 28. Choice of Law/Good Faith: All terms and provisions of this Contract including, but not limited to the Attorney review and professional Inspection paragraphs, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois and are subject to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all Illinois contracts. The idea to offer more money and waving the inspection came from my realtor and lawyer. I thought it was very unethical. I listened and followed through with the advice of my realtor and lawyer because they are the so called experts at this. As for your assumptions: 1. The second contract did not contain a financing contingency because it was a cash deal False, the second contract was not a cash deal. The only difference was a higher purchase price. The seller believed you might not get your loan False, I was pre-approved for $50,000 more than my contract price. 2. You were such a pain no amount of money could entice them to sell their house to you. I only had contact with my realtor and lawyer, no contact what so ever with the seller, her realtor or lawyer. 3. I wouldn't be surprised to learn you didn't pay, or were reluctant to pay, your attorney False, my attorney was paid in full the same week I received the invoice. 4. Did you read the contract before you signed it? Yes and my realtor did explain each paragraph in the contract. A question for you: Do you believe it is within the boundaries of good faith and fair dealing to cancel a signed contract because a higher offer was made?

It does not appear from your report that your attorney has engaged in any unethical behavior. To the contrary, he appears to have devoted considerable effort to assisting you in trying to keep this deal together. The attorney review provision permits consumers to cancel a real estate purchase agreement, generally within 5 business days, REGARDLESS of the reason. You complain they cancelled your contract, but apparently you were willing to offer more money to entice the seller to cancel their second purchase contract under attorney review. Interesting, isn't it. You complain about your contract being cancelled, but don't seem to have a problem with someone else having their contract cancelled. It is also curious that offering more money and waiving your inspection contingency did not entice them to keep your contract. Two potential reasons come to mind: 1) the second contract did not contain a financing contingency because it was a cash deal, and the seller believed you might not get your loan, or 2) YOU were such a pain no amount of money could entice them to sell their house to you. I also find it curious you are blaming your lawyer. YOU invested your money on a loan application and a home inspection, not your lawyer. He tried to keep the deal together under the contract terms YOU brought him, with the assistance of your realtor. Perhaps your loan officer was giving you an unrealistic estimate of how much you could borrow. Perhaps your realtor showed you a house you couldn't afford. Again, maybe YOU WERE THE PROBLEM. I wouldn't be surprised to learn you didn't pay, or were reluctant to pay, your attorney for his services. YOU came to him for help, YOU AND YOUR REALTOR brought him a problem transaction he devoted extra effort to trying to save, and I'll bet you refused to pay him for your time because you didn't get what you wanted. You clearly FEEL you are a victim, when you were willing to do the same to another buyer. Further, there was nothing dishonest and unethical here, the contract and process worked EXACTLY AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO. Even after all these explanations, you're probably still completely ungrateful for the assistance you were provided. Did you read the contract before you signed it? Did you ask your realtor to explain the attorney review provision? If YOU had changed YOUR mind, I'm sure you wouldn't have had any problem cancelling the contract.