thanks. that's an interesting way to look at it.
On the other side of the argument though, because of the lawyer's inaction (i.e. he did not add the phrase even though we asked him to and he agreed to, and he clearly had time to) and negligence, we were told, by him, the lawyer that represented us, that we had no claim against the seller based on the old language. Based on his advice, if we did not close on that day, we would lose our deposit (10% of selling price, which is dozens of time more expensive than any numbers we are talking about here). He either misinformed us (which he should be responsible), or he gave us the right advice, but then he caused that problem (i.e. the seller was still in compliance with the contract) in the first place by not changing the language as we told him to. Why should he be off the hook all together?
On the other side of the argument though, because of the lawyer's inaction (i.e. he did not add the phrase even though we asked him to and he agreed to, and he clearly had time to) and negligence, we were told, by him, the lawyer that represented us, that we had no claim against the seller based on the old language. Based on his advice, if we did not close on that day, we would lose our deposit (10% of selling price, which is dozens of time more expensive than any numbers we are talking about here). He either misinformed us (which he should be responsible), or he gave us the right advice, but then he caused that problem (i.e. the seller was still in compliance with the contract) in the first place by not changing the language as we told him to. Why should he be off the hook all together?
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
