The Agreement - Seller on Unequal Grounds

If I were offered a million dollars
I still wouldn't accept this Agreement.
What's a million dollars if you're not
going to get it or there's a good
chance you won't get it.

I'm not a millionaire. I can't afford to
be screwed out of ownership of my house
and the money for my house. If that were
to happen, I'd probably end up having
to remain in what was my house and pay rent
to a likely "entity" my employer, Ford or
some other entity.


I talked to the Buckingham agent today.
He tried to reassure me that I won't get
screwed,but even he could not explain
why the restriction was included in the
Agreement. The restriction is; after signing
the Agreement, I can only reveal the
contents of the Agreement in a court by court
order. In other words, if I were to institute
proceedings against the Buyer in Court, let's
say for breach of contract, I could not
submit the Agreement as evidence because I
would be revealing the contents of the
Agreement without an order. The restriction,
however, does not apply to the Buyer. If the
Buyer institutes proceedings against me, the
Seller, for breach of contract,the Buyer can
submit the Agreement as evidence, revealing
the contents of the Agreement without an order.

How does one prove their case without evidence?
That's the point isn't it? It seems to me that
if the Seller, can't prove her case against the
the Buyer for breach of contract, the Buyer
can breach the Agreement without fear of
legal consequences, right? So to put the
Buyer and Seller on equal grounds the
restriction would have to be remove. What do
you think? See below.



Agreement of Purchase and Sale


Confidentiality

(a) The Seller agrees to keep confidential
the terms and conditions of the Agreement
of Purchase and Sale and Schedule "A" hereto
and without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the Seller agrees to keep confidential
the Purchase Price and the amount of Expenses
set out in Paragraph 7 herein for a period of
one (1) year after the Closing Date.


(b) The only exception to paragraph 10 (a) is
that the Seller may reveal the contents of
the aforesaid Agreement and Schedule to its
legal and financial advisors or to a Court or
Tribunal of competent jurisdiction if so
ordered; however should it release such information
to legal or financial advisors they must first
agree in writing to be bound by the terms of
this paragraph.

(c) In the event that the Seller or its advisors
breach the terms of this paragraph, the Seller
shall forthwith repay he amounts of the deposit
to the Buyer as liquidated damages for such breach.


Note the differences between how the Seller
and Buyer are treated in the paragraphs and
compare


Purchase Price

(ii) The terms of the holding of the funds
in trust are:

a) If this Agreement is terminated or is not
completed due to a default by the Seller
hereunder, the Deposit shall be returned to
the Buyer without deduction together with any
interest earned thereon and the Buyer shall be
entitled to any rights or remedies it may have
at law.

b) If this Agreement is terminated by the Buyer
or is not completed due to a default of the Buyer
hereunder, the Deposit, or such part thereof as
has been paid prior to the date of termination
shall be released to the Seller.


Note that unlike the Buyer there's no mention
of the Seller being "entitled to any rights
or remedies it may have at law." I suppose
with no evidence, the Seller would be unable
to obtain any remedies, anyway. You need proof
and the Seller can't even prove that there was
a contract between the Buyer and Seller. So
with no proof, how can you ask the court to
enforce the agreement? And what's up with
the Tribunal? Does the Tribunal have anything
to do with the Law Society?

Also the Buyer forwarded the Agreement to
lawyer #1. In my letter to the Buckingham
agent, copied to EWCP lawyers, I told him not
to forward any material to lawyer #1 as I had
not retained him to represent me. EWCP's lawyer
sent the Agreement to lawyer#1 revealing the
contents of the Agreement.

I told the Buckingham agent that the whole
thing seemed more about control than about
buying my house. He didn't say anything.

So here's the all important question. What
does the Buyer intend to do, that it
requires that the Seller not reveal the
contents of the Agreement in Court? Because
it seems to me that the Buyer is anticipating
legal action against it for something it
intends to do to this Seller.


Are you a control freak? - take the quiz
http://www.howtomanagepeople.com/you/

Control Freak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_freak


Fundamentals of Contract Law
http://ezinearticles.com/?Fundamentals-of-Contract-Law&id=82686