Ed Illinois couple sued for deciding not to sell their home...

[Grizzly Adams]

...to a black couple.

Couple charged with refusing to sell home to black buyers

HUD alleges that Daniel and Adrienne Sabbia and their real estate agent, Jeffrey Lowe of Prudential Rubloff Properties, violated the Fair Housing Act when they discriminated against Willborn, his wife, Peytyn and their family for not following through with the sale of an amenity-filled 8,000-square-foot home at 3300 S. Normal Ave. in the Bridgeport neighborhood.
...
According to the complaint, Lowe said in an interview while under oath that while he was representing the Sabbias, Daniel Sabbia told Lowe "he would prefer not to sell the home to an African-American, though he qualified the testimony, saying 'but if it was for the right price he did not care who bought the house.' "

What confuses me about this, even beyond the racist ignorance, is how anyone can be subject to civil penalties for electing not to sell something they own, for any reason. Isn't it their property? They should be able to sell it, keep it, or tear it down if they want, for any reason they want.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think racism should be a legal choice for not continuing a business transaction.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

the only reason i can see for this would be if contracts and other paperwork had already been signed, then the owner backed out, or some other obligations regarding selling via a real estate agent

if its just an issue of the owner not accepting an offer because the buyer was blake i dont think that should be a legal issue

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't think racism should be a legal choice for not continuing a business transaction.

First of all, no contract was signed so no one was obligated to continue anything for any reason. The buyers were just as free to cease pursuit of the sale as the sellers. Interestingly, the buyers would not be subject to liability if they had stopped the process at the same point as it was stopped here if they decided they didn't want to live in a house infected with "cracker cooties."

Second, why do you get to choose what reasons are valid ones when deciding whether or not to sell one's personal belongings?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?

Also, I have the right to give my opinion on what valid reasons are or not. It's part of the 1st ammendment.

 

[lionking]

You can choose not to sell your house, but if you give a reason as per the OP, you deserve to be sued for stupidity at the very least.

 

[Alan]

This seems to be like Rand Paul's view on this type of thing. Would that be a fair characterisation?

There's an interview with him where he defends it against Rachel Maddow's criticisms.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?

Yes, but that's irrelevant to whether or not someone should be compelled to sell their home if they don't want to.

Also, I have the right to give my opinion on what valid reasons are or not. It's part of the 1st ammendment.

Yes, but you're asserting your opinion should be the law. Ergo, you should have some justification for your opinion if you want it to be taken seriously.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, but that's irrelevant to whether or not someone should be compelled to sell their home if they don't want to.

Not really, they are both business transactions.

Yes, but you're asserting your opinion should be the law. Ergo, you should have some justification for your opinion if you want it to be taken seriously.

My opinion should be law, as it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on race.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Not really, they are both business transactions.

And I don't believe you surrender your rights to your property (especially to your home) just because green bits of paper are involved.

My opinion should be law, as it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on race.

Do you get dizzy in that circle?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And I don't believe you surrender your rights to your property (especially to your home) just because green bits of paper are involved.

So you are an anarchist?

Do you get dizzy in that circle?

What circle? If you're implying I'm presenting a circular argument, you're absolutely wrong. It's a value judgement. I believe discrimination based on race should be illegal in all-but-personal choices.

 

[drkitten]

And I don't believe you surrender your rights to your property (especially to your home) just because green bits of paper are involved.

[Shrug.] Well, then you're wrong. Ask any lawyer if you want a more authoritative "you're wrong."

You surrender your rights to your property any time the government says that you surrender your rights to your property, as long as due process has been followed. In this case, the government has said you have no right to discriminate in business transactions on the basis of race and has said specifically that you have no right to discriminate on the basis of race when selling or buying a house.

If that bothers you, phone your Congressman.

 

[Soapy Sam]

What if a black man and a white man make the same offer?
Are you allowed to sell to whichever you choose, so long as you don't state your reasons?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

[Shrug.] Well, then you're wrong. Ask any lawyer if you want a more authoritative "you're wrong."

You surrender your rights to your property any time the government says that you surrender your rights to your property, as long as due process has been followed. In this case, the government has said you have no right to discriminate in business transactions on the basis of race and has said specifically that you have no right to discriminate on the basis of race when selling or buying a house.

If that bothers you, phone your Congressman.

i had a look at the fair housing act, it seems like if they had put the house up for sale "by owner" they would have been able to discriminate, but because they used a real estate agent they were prohibited from discriminating

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you believe restaurant owners should have the "right" to refuse service to certain races of people?

Also, I have the right to give my opinion on what valid reasons are or not. It's part of the 1st ammendment.

The thing is that there is a difference between a private individual selling their house and a business. If they were developers selling units in development it would be a stronger case.

 

[drkitten]

What if a black man and a white man make the same offer?
Are you allowed to sell to whichever you choose, so long as you don't state your reasons?

Or even if you state your reasons, as long as they're not racially based.

I had a situation like that when I sold my house a couple of months ago. Several interested buyers, and I hate haggling. So I told my agent at lunchtime "here's my best-and-final offer, firm. First "yes" gets the house."

I had my first "yes" at 4pm. My second "yes" at 7pm. I neither know nor care what race the second buyer was; his bid was rejected not due to race, but due to (lack of) timelines.

 

[drkitten]

First of all, no contract was signed so no one was obligated to continue anything for any reason.

Er, this is also wrong. From the article:

The home was listed for sale for $1.799 million and had been for sale for almost two years when the Willborns toured it in early January, according to the complaint filed with HUD's office of administrative law judges. The couple made a $1.5 million offer for the home that day and after two days of negotiation, the Willborn's accepted the $1.7 million counteroffer from the Sabbias.

Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient.

The Sabbias are in breach of contract, assuming the facts as described in the article. The Willborns are entitled to the fulfillment of the contract and/or suitable recompense.

 

[The Painter]

Er, this is also wrong. From the article:



Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient. The Sabbias are in breach of contract, assuming the facts as described in the article. The Willborns are entitled to the fulfillment of the contract and/or suitable recompense.

Yeah sure. Tell that to the judge.

It was an offer, not a contract. If someone had come along and offered 2 million the have every right to take that offer instead of the 1.7

 

[Cuddles]

Offer-and-acceptance creates a contract. The signature isn't necessary, just convenient.

I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.

 

[drkitten]

I don't know about the US, but in the UK that certainly isn't true. There's a reason the term gazumping exists. If it's different in the US, that seems pretty stupid really. Merely saying you're interested should never be enough to assume a binding contract exists.

"Merely saying you're interested" also isn't "accepting."

Similarly, accepting "subject to [bla bla bla]" (which is the usual practice in England) isn't "accepting." That's how you get "gazumping"; no one in the UK actually makes binding offers until more or less closing date, because offers and acceptances are generally written "subject to contract," which means "this is an offer that that explicitly lets either party back out." But "offer and acceptance" is the basic standard under both English and Scottish law for the creation of a contract.

The difficulty, of course, is in proving than an offer was actually made and accepted,... but in this instance the buyer would have the agent as a witness, since the agent would have conveyed both the offer and the acceptance and could therefore prove the existence of both.