Pursuing damages for buyers terminating unconditional contra

I'm just after any relevant advice and of course we will be seeking legal advice but it would also be good to get some perspective from anyone who's been in this situation!

We got an offer on our house after it being on the market for about 8 months. We accepted and building & pest was unconditional however buyers finance approval kept getting extended (pretty much every 2-3 days for about a month!) looking back now we should have pulled the pin! Anyway we got notice from our solicitor that buyers finance had been approved (finally) and contract was unconditional and settlement was booked. We then got a request to extend settlement date a further week and we agreed but advised we would be charging default interest. We then got notice from our solicitor saying buyers did not know when or if settle my would happen and would like to terminate. We then were in talks with our real estate to see if we could come up with a solution as apparently the bank advised the buyers finance was
Approved however reneged once it came time to settle. We offered buyers a new contract with a sunset clause and them renting from us while they secured finance with another bank. We would however withhold their $6000 deposit and reserve our rights to sue for damages on first contract if this one also fell through. Buyers were agreeable to this and new contracts and tenancy agreements were drawn up but they pulled out last minute!!! However in the meantime we found and fell in love with a perfect piece of land, which we now have a contract on (subject to to sale of our house, with a sunset clause). So where we are at at this stage is we have the buyers initial deposit (50/50 with the real estate) and have our empty house back on the market. I am however concerned that its going to take forever for our house to sell, we ate stuck paying for an empty house and we lose our land!

I guess my main question is, if we were to try to either sell our house quickly for less or possibly put it to auction then is it even worth us going through litigation to recoup the difference in sale price and damages or is it going to cost us more than its worth? To even speak to a litigation lawyer and get an idea of costs it's going to cost us $330! So frustrating, as we were supposed to be well on our way to saving for our dream home except we are stuck paying for an empty house!

Bump. Anyone?

You may find that posting this in the general discussion thread or even just Building a new house will get you a qu kier answer, this one isn't as busy.

Oh cool thanks for that!

Actually I would have thought this was the idea place for it, as it does concern home finance.

It could possibly get lost in amongst all the other threads quite quickly in the building a new house section.

I am so sorry to hear that what a really crappy situation.

If I were you, and the house sells for less, I would be looking at suing the original buyers for the difference. But you definitely need legal advice and find out what the "precedent" for this kind of case is.

I don't understand why the real estate agent is getting 50% of the deposit.

I would be looking for another agent.

You do need to get advice but as a starting point; you need to mitigate your losses so things like having the place unoccupied and unfurnished may lower the sale price or mean that things remain unfixed etc. Sometimes even the method of selling can be claimed to contribute to your loss. So if the previous agreed price $250k and you only get $200k you need to show that you've tried to reduce your losses to have any chance of recovering the $50k difference (+costs).

Even if you're successful in the end you need to be confident that you'll be able to recover this money. Its easy for a court to say they owe you $x and the judgement debt will incur interest at y%, but they need to have that money to pay you, no one else can or will. If they've put their life savings into the deposit and are having trouble getting a mortgage.....you know where I'm going.

What I've said doesn't sound great but it'll always be worth paying for that advice. There only needs to be a small point that can sway outcomes. You'd hate to find out in 7 years (statute of limitations) that there was something you could've done but didn't. Plus in all honesty only a very small percentage of disputes need a court determination most are settled well before even filing.

Would you mind explaining why the agent is entitled to 50% of the deposit when the sale has fallen through? In NSW the commission does not get paid till settlement. I would say the agent did a poor job of qualifying the buyers and doesn't deserve a cent.