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

[GreNME]

There is a whole lot of misinformation in this thread about the law - both regarding civil rights and contracts.

To understand the civil rights law, we need to look at the situation that the law was created to correct. White people were voluntarily segregating themselves from blacks, creating white-only and black-only areas. Deeds frequently contained covenants that the property could not be sold to anyone who wasn't white. Realtors regularly steered buyers towards their corresponding racial neighborhoods. Black buyers weren't even shown houses in white areas, or were lied to about price or availability.

I should not be required to defend the idea that segregation is bad. Courts and legislatures were presented with evidence that predominently black areas received worse municipal services, police coverage, and other government benefits. Ghetoizing blacks caused a host of social and economic disadvantages to them.

So, the government rectified the situation by making it illegal for realtors to steer buyers based on race. Racial covenants were declared illegal and void. And individuals were sometimes subject to the same rules.

You may argue that this is someone's private property and he can do what he likes with it. Remember, though, that this person has received a benefit from the state. He owns the property only because the state allows him to. He is safe from invasion because the state protects him. And he received the protections of real estate and contract law when he purchased the property to begin with. When the individual volunteers to benefit from the community's laws, the individual should also be required to obey rules that let others get those same benefits.

As for contract law, it is not in question in this case. In general, a contract to sell real estate must be in writing to be enforceable. Verbal offer and acceptance will not create a contract to sell realty in most jurisdictions. However, in this case, contract law is not implicated. Only civil rights law is.

Well put.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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

In most places, and I will go out on a limb and assume here*, real estate comes under the Statute of Frauds. So, in fact, there isn't a contract unless it's written down and signed. Verbal offer and acceptance are not legally valid on Illinois real estate contracts.

But as has been explained above, our anti-discrimination statutes are independent of contract law. If the seller violated the statute, he violated the statute.

*I checked. I was right.

 

[drkitten]

In most places, and I will go out on a limb and assume here*, real estate comes under the Statute of Frauds. So, in fact, there isn't a contract unless it's written down and signed.

Well, if you're making assumptions, so will I. As pointed out, by pgwenthold, the seller's agent almost certainly has written instructions about the $1.7 million counteroffer. This is routine (largely as a CYA for the benefit of the agent) but would satisfy the requirement for the Statute of Frauds.

From Wikipedia: "The Statute is satisfied if the contract to convey is evidenced by a writing or writings containing the essential terms of a purchase and sale agreement and signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced."

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, if you're making assumptions, so will I. As pointed out, by pgwenthold, the seller's agent almost certainly has written instructions about the $1.7 million counteroffer. This is routine (largely as a CYA for the benefit of the agent) but would satisfy the requirement for the Statute of Frauds.

To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if the $1.7 mil "counter offer" documentation consists of crossing out the $1.5 mil in the original offer and handwriting in $1.7 mil instead, but that means the rest of the offer details are still in play. Things like earnest money, proposed closing date, and conditions upon which the agreement can be voided (pending an acceptable home inspection, for example, and securing funding (although some sellers might refuse the offer on that basis and prefer a pre-approved buyer)), etc.

But in the end, it is still a written agreement. Whether the seller has officially signed it yet or not is not going to matter at that point, because if the agent communicated acceptance, then it is only a matter of timing and convenience. Moreover, if they refused to sign it after learning the buyer is black, it only strengthens the discrimination case against them.

 

[Aepervius]

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?

That is not necessarly true. You wouldneed to check jurisprudence on that first (maybe you already have so forgive me in such case). Around here we have what is called a sale-promise, which can also rarely be orally given (i.e. no contract) if there are witnesses (in practice I am not sure how it works out). Breaking that sale promise can lead you to be forced to buy (as buyer) or to sell (as saler). Please note that this is only valid for house, as far as I know, and nothing else.

 

[LTC8K6]

The only evidence we have is what Lowe said?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In Illinois saying "yes" to an offer binds you as a seller.

The seller didn't say yes, they quoted a price and the buyer said yes.

 

[BenBurch]

The seller didn't say yes, they quoted a price and the buyer said yes.

That is a significant difference, then.

 

[Region Rat]

That is a significant difference, then.

Is it? Why?

<Serious question- I don't know. >

 

[CJW]

Well if this were going through an agent, there would be a preliminary written offer, which then gets addended or modified as needed. So that is there, and I think the verbal acceptance of that is going to be binding.

It's not a really a "verbal agreement" because there is a written offer.

I think that, since this is real estate, until the verbal agreement is translated into a signature on a piece of paper, it is not binding. But as I said, it's been a while since Business Law classes.

 

[Cainkane1]

They should have known better than to say something like this. If they put their house up for sale then you got to sell it to whomever wants to buy it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think that, since this is real estate, until the verbal agreement is translated into a signature on a piece of paper, it is not binding. But as I said, it's been a while since Business Law classes.

That's assume that it was obtained in good faith. However, let's go back to this scenerio: buyer makes an offer in writing. Seller instructs agent to counter-offer by making small change to the buyer's offer. Agent makes said change and takes it to the buyer, without the seller's signature with the understanding that the seller will sign off on the modifications when the time is more convenient. Buyer verbally accepts the offer, and will sign when it when the seller's agent gives them the paperwork.

In the meantime, the seller finds out the buyer is black, and therefore refuses to sign off on the counter-offer, and now claims that they aren't bound to the agreement because they never signed the counter-offer document?

Is "We had an agreement but I didn't sign off on it because I discovered he was black and therefore am not bound to the contract" really going to hold up as a defense in a discrimination case?

 

[pgwenthold]

They should have known better than to say something like this. If they put their house up for sale then you got to sell it to whomever wants to buy it.

That's not true. There are plenty of conditions you can put on the sale of your house. For example, you can chose to sell it only to people who have pre-approved mortgages or (trivially) to people who are willing to pay a specific price (most offers these around here, at least, come in 5 - 10% below asking - sellers don't have to accept that). However, in those cases, the buyer has a chance to respond (either increase their offer, or go out and get a mortgage if they don't have one in hand)

However, one thing you can't do is refuse to sell it on the basis of skin color.

 

[BenBurch]

Is it? Why?

<Serious question- I don't know. >

Because no relationship exists between the buyer and seller until an agreement is reached.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because no relationship exists between the buyer and seller until an agreement is reached.

Well you can say they reached an agreement on price, that of 1.7 million that the owner had made as a counter offer to the buyers original offer.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well you can say they reached an agreement on price, that of 1.7 million that the owner had made as a counter offer to the buyers original offer.

Yeah, all the buyer has to say is, "OK" and there is an agreement.

By making the counter-offer, the seller has agreed to those terms. He can't say, "Yeah, I offered to sell you my house for $1.7 million, but that doesn't mean I agreed to let you buy it for that much."

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, all the buyer has to say is, "OK" and there is an agreement.

By making the counter-offer, the seller has agreed to those terms. He can't say, "Yeah, I offered to sell you my house for $1.7 million, but that doesn't mean I agreed to let you buy it for that much."

This whole thing shows they are dumb. They could have spiked the deal all kinds of ways with out making an issue of race.

 

[pgwenthold]

This whole thing shows they are dumb. They could have spiked the deal all kinds of ways with out making an issue of race.

Depends. When did they discover the buyer was black?

If they knew it with the initial offer, then you are right, they could have made unreasonable demands and backed off. However, once they made that counter offer, they couldn't go back and change it to lock out the black buyer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Depends. When did they discover the buyer was black?

If they knew it with the initial offer, then you are right, they could have made unreasonable demands and backed off. However, once they made that counter offer, they couldn't go back and change it to lock out the black buyer.

They might not be able to adjust the price but they could do lots of other things if they were sufficiently motivated. Lots of accepted offers for houses fall through.

 

[MikeMangum]

The thing I find silly is that if the sellers had decided that they didn't want to sell the house to the potential buyers because the buyers were of the wrong astrological sign, or because their psychic told them that these were the wrong buyers, or because the buyers were fans of a sports team that the sellers hated, or because the buyers made it clear they were going to remove the flower print wallpaper that the sellers made by hand and the sellers couldn't stand the idea, it would have been perfectly legal.