ville-marie Le George - 45 étages

[Everlong]

They requested us to transfer our deposit to new notary few months ago.   They planned to do something bad.    And Notary didnt keep our deposit . They transferred 2/3  of them to developer for building cost without letting us know.   Can we sue them? 

[wascllwww]

19 hours ago, invest26 said:

Hi , I did purchase an unit in this project, but didn’t receive anything. Do you know if it’s for all the units ?

My sales told me today, she said it could be after tax 18.5% increase.  She confirmed it is for all units. 

some clients are going to sue them. and some agents have not yet received the commission. they are going to sue them too. 

2 hours ago, Everlong said:

Will you sue the developer or just get the deposit back?

 

Also when did you buy it? 

I bought it 2 years ago, paid 20% already. My sales told me they will send me an email aboout this price increase and details of how and how much we can get the money back.

probably i will sue them.

[wascllwww]

13 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

 

 

Cette affaire ressemble étrangement* à celle que nous avons discutée récemment sur un autre fil, et qui portait principalement sur de nombreux similaires cas en Ontario.   En résumé: le promoteur avec lequel vous avez signé un contrat spécifiant le prix vous informe que le prix est majoré, et que vous devez accepter la hausse, sans quoi le contrat sera annulé et votre dépôt vous sera remboursé. Le promoteur se justifie en prétendant que les coûts de construction ont terriblement augmenté depuis la signature du contrat; c'est possible, mais ce qui importe vraiment, c'est que le promoteur pense (est pratiquement certain) qu'il pourrait vendre la même unité beaucoup plus cher dans le marché actuel.  L'acheteur original se trouve lésé, car même s'il récupère son dépôt, il devra trouver une alternative offerte au prix actuel du marché.  Je crois que cette pratique est encore "légale" en Ontario.  Dans mon message, je me demandais si c'était également le cas au Québec.  Ce qui est évident, c'est que les mêmes causes produisent les mêmes effets.

* Comme dans l'histoire du canard (je vous épargne la citation).  

yes i think it is the same case. but my point it is nothing was built for the last two years until inflation came and material price rised, then asking for a more than 15% price increase, so what did them do for these two year comparing with other constructions.

[Rocco]

Re-read your original contracts. There may be a clause that says that the builder may keep option to raise price in the future before completion. People dont read everything. If its there, too bad you're stuck.

[lma13]

53 minutes ago, Rocco said:

Re-read your original contracts. There may be a clause that says that the builder may keep option to raise price in the future before completion. People dont read everything. If its there, too bad you're stuck.

theres a difference if the builder started construction as promised and mid way inflation jumped significantly, but here the builder delayed the start of construction significantly which caused him to be impacted by inflation. I think its the builder fault. The builder has to claim the extra costs of inflation from whoever caused his project to be delayed and not from the buyers.

[acpnc]

C'est ce genre d'attitude qui détruit la confiance des consommateurs, qui nuit considérablement à l'industrie et à l'image d'une majorité de promoteurs. Il ne faudrait pas laisser la construction devenir une jungle où le plus fort l'emporte. C'est la responsabilité de Québec de mettre de l'ordre dans ce secteur et discipliner les prédateurs comme il l'a fait déjà à plusieurs reprises auparavant. Quand on parle d'un potentiel de 680 acheteurs abusés ou sur le point de l'être, il faut intervenir avant que la contagion ne se répande ailleurs.

[Everlong]

2 minutes ago, acpnc said:

正是這種態度破壞了消費者的信心，極大地損害了行業和廣大促銷員的形象。不應該讓建築成為優勝劣汰的叢林。魁北克有責任在這個領域建立秩序，並像以前已經做過幾次那樣對掠食者進行紀律處分。當我們談到可能有 680 名買家被濫用或即將被濫用時，我們必須在疫情蔓延到其他地方之前進行干預。

Totally agree.  Shall we do sth now

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a une heure, Rocco a dit :

Re-read your original contracts. There may be a clause that says that the builder may keep option to raise price in the future before completion. People dont read everything. If its there, too bad you're stuck.

True, especially if the clause is so vague such as "may keep option to raise price in the future before completion", without specifying the applicable escalating formula.

 

il y a 23 minutes, lma13 a dit :

theres a difference if the builder started construction as promised and mid way inflation jumped significantly, but here the builder delayed the start of construction significantly which caused him to be impacted by inflation. I think its the builder fault. The builder has to claim the extra costs of inflation from whoever caused his project to be delayed and not from the buyers.

You have a point, from a moral perspective.  But the issue would have to be resolved in a court of justice, meaning costs and further delays without being assured of winning your case.   Meanwhile, market prices keep rising.  Thus, you may reluctantly decide that it would be preferable to swallow the price increase requested by the builder, rather than encountering the risk of facing even higher prices under the current market conditions.  Put differently, it means comparing the revised asking price (for the unit you purchased) with alternatives on the market.   

The whole affair has become quite serious.  On the one hand, builders face a high degree of unpredicability in terms of the real construction costs that will be encountered during the proces from A to Z, the more so if the project is a highrise building taking years to complete.  Some builders choose to incorporate this uncertainty into their initial asking price, but this is making them less competitive than those that would rather insert an escalation clause enabling them to offer a lower (initial) asking price.  From the buyer's perspective, neither is particularly attractive. 

At the very least, I would wish for a stronger legal framework to prevent abuses.  But it should not be so restrictive as to render the launching of major projects unpalatable except for a few large builders with strong balance sheets, because in this case competition would suffer (oligopoly) and prices would be unnecessarily high.

Anyone wanting to avoid this mess should rather look at existing units for sale on the market, and accept that you may not find exactly what you want.   

[Everlong]

On 03/02/2022 at 09:58, wascllwww said:

My sales told me today, she said it could be after tax 18.5% increase.  She confirmed it is for all units. 

some clients are going to sue them. and some agents have not yet received the commission. they are going to sue them too. 

I bought it 2 years ago, paid 20% already. My sales told me they will send me an email aboout this price increase and details of how and how much we can get the money back.

probably i will sue them.

….. I suppose u can get back 20%.   
they want to return less than 20%?

agree , we should sue them

 

 

se received an email regarding the change of email domain. They sold the project to new developer .

 

 

 

[wascllwww]

2 hours ago, Everlong said:

hey want to return less than 20%?

based on the info i got, the promoter used part of our deposit to pay the agent's commission, so the refund will deduct this portion. but the funny thing is some agents have not yet got this commission. 

i was told next week, we will received the email from them. we ll see.