Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/25) */ WHEN [redacted] CONTACTED THE FIAT MANAGER HE TOLD HER TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THE [redacted] DEALERSHIP BECAUSE [redacted] HAS THE CORRECT DIOGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT FOR A [redacted] THE SALES MANAGER AT FIAT THEN WENT WITH [redacted] TO [redacted] AND SPOKE WITH THE SERVICE ADVISOR ABOUT THE VEHICLE AND SHE WAS TOLD THAT SOMETHING IN THE COOLING SYSTEM WAS CRACKED WHICH CAUSED A LEAK AND THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AND DAMAGED THE MOTOR [redacted] THEN WROTE A LETTER TO FIAT OF RENO MANAGER WHICH WAS FORWARED TO ME AND I CALLED MS NEVERS AND EXPLAINDED THAT I HAD CHECKED AND WE DID A SMOG AND SAFTEY BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS SOLD AS REQUIRED BY LAWTHAT SHE WAS OFFERED A SERVICE CONTRACT AT THE TIME OF SALE WHICH SHE DECLINED AND ALSO THE EVEN IF SHE HAD AN EXTENDED SERVICE CONTRACT THAT THAT COVERED MANUFACTURES DEFECTES AND THAT IF SOME OUTSIDE SOURCE OF IMPACT CAUSED THE CRACK IT WOULD NOT BE COVEREDALSO IF IT HAD BEEN CRACKED WHEN SOLD IT WOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR THREE MONTHS AS ENGINES OVERHEAT DUE TO LACK OF COOLANT VERY QUICKLYNOT THREE MONTHS LATER.SHE THANKED ME AND TOLD ME SHE WAS JUST EXPOREING ALL AVENUES AND SEEMED FINE WITH THE ANSWERS I PROVIDEDWHEATHER A WARNING LIGHT WENT ON OR NOT I DO NOT KNOW AS I WAS NOT THERE BUT I ALSO TOLD HER TO HAVE [redacted] CHECK THE WARNING LIGHTS TO MAKE SURE THE WERE OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IF NOT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPEAL HER CASE TO [redacted] AS IT WOULD BE A MANUFACTUERS ISSUE/DEFECTEVERYTHING WAS WORKING PROPERLY WHEN IT WAS SOLDIF THE VEHICLE WAS RUN WITHOUT COOLANT AND OVERHEATED THAT IS OPERATOR RESPONSABILITYWE DID WHAT WE COULD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MS NEVERS HAD
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/01/14) */
*** came in to the dealership looking to buy a FIAT 500x for his wifeHe filled out and signed a credit application form which gives the dealership permission to run his creditAlong with that he was trying to get to a certain low
payment.If someone comes in and goes through the process of filling out a credit application, sits down to try and agree on a price, the only way to give an accurate payment is to run the persons credit to see what interest rate they would qualify for, or if they qualify at allAfter speaking with the employees involved, I was told that they had already run his credit ( which is procedure )that's why the customer thought it was done after he left
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2016/01/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The statement provided by FIAT in their response is not correctI have submitted a Voice Message received by ***, the Customer Care Manager, (uploaded on 1/7/2015) where he clearly states, that my credit should not have and it was a misunderstandingHe further said that a letter would go to *** advising them of this mistake and that my credit should not have been run
Further, there is no possible way that my credit was run while I was at the facility as the application never left the desk we were sitting atOnly once that it was clear, that we would not come to an agreement, I leftIt was only after I left that they ran my creditThey had no reason to run my credit being that we could not come to any agreement, and I clearly told them not to
Again, please refer to the voice mail message left by *** that I uploaded on 1/7/
Final Business Response /* (1000, 68, 2016/07/26) */
Please see document online
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 70, 2016/08/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Inquiry removed from ***- Case closed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/08/24) */
[redacted] Made a phone inquiry about the vehicle in question, he was from out of town and never came into the store. the salesman took the phone call but when he came to a manager to talk about the car he was informed that the vehicle...
had already been dealer traded already to another dealer and was waiting to be picked up by the other dealer. we never ran the customers credit card or took a deposit on it or signed any paperwork. the website stats that cars are subject to pre sale and sometimes it takes a day or so to process taking them off the website. the customer was offered one of the other 4 or 5 like vehicles in stock and he did not want them. we would prefer to retail a car than dealer trade it but it had already been traded and waiting for pick up.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/08/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The dealer response makes this sound like it occurred over a short period of time but after we had agreed to a price and the dealer (the person I talked to said he was the sales manager, not a salesman) had taken my card information 6 days went by without the dealer making any mention of the car being traded. Exactly the opposite the sales manager continued to represent that the vehicle was mine. The dealer says it takes a day or so for the web site to be updated, yet here we are four and a half weeks later and the car still shows as being for sale at the dealer. The cars that I was offered were not the same equipment/option level as the car that I was sold. I still believe the dealer should make some attempt to honor this deal by getting an equal car from another dealer for me, and honoring the price.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 21, 2016/09/01) */
No contract was signed, nothing was negotiated by a sales manager no agreement was reached a customer can come in and make an offer that doesn't mean it will be accepted by the store or the counter offer by the customer. had the customer ended up not wanting the car, changing his mind for any reason we could not hold him to it because there is no contract. all he needs to do is go to a local dealer and negotiate a price and he can buy the car if a dealer will make a deal with him.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2016/09/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did talk to a person who identified himself as the sales manager there. He told me that we had a deal on the car, not once but multiple times over the course of a week while we were waiting for the dealer to prep the car. I was never over the course of the week told anything but the car is mine and that we had a deal. A good dealer would try to get me another car, and not just tell me to drive to LA to get a car (that's where the remaining one's are) It's obvious to me that this dealer is not interested in making things right. I think it's time we agree to disagree on this, and close this discussion.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/25) */
WHEN [redacted] CONTACTED THE FIAT MANAGER HE TOLD HER TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THE [redacted] DEALERSHIP BECAUSE [redacted] HAS THE CORRECT DIOGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT FOR A [redacted]. THE SALES MANAGER AT FIAT THEN WENT WITH [redacted] TO [redacted] AND SPOKE WITH THE...
SERVICE ADVISOR ABOUT THE VEHICLE AND SHE WAS TOLD THAT SOMETHING IN THE COOLING SYSTEM WAS CRACKED WHICH CAUSED A LEAK AND THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AND DAMAGED THE MOTOR. [redacted] THEN WROTE A LETTER TO FIAT OF RENO MANAGER WHICH WAS FORWARED TO ME AND I CALLED MS NEVERS AND EXPLAINDED THAT I HAD CHECKED AND WE DID A SMOG AND SAFTEY BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS SOLD AS REQUIRED BY LAW. THAT SHE WAS OFFERED A SERVICE CONTRACT AT THE TIME OF SALE WHICH SHE DECLINED AND ALSO THE EVEN IF SHE HAD AN EXTENDED SERVICE CONTRACT THAT THAT COVERED MANUFACTURES DEFECTES AND THAT IF SOME OUTSIDE SOURCE OF IMPACT CAUSED THE CRACK IT WOULD NOT BE COVERED. ALSO IF IT HAD BEEN CRACKED WHEN SOLD IT WOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR THREE MONTHS AS ENGINES OVERHEAT DUE TO LACK OF COOLANT VERY QUICKLY. NOT THREE MONTHS LATER.SHE THANKED ME AND TOLD ME SHE WAS JUST EXPOREING ALL AVENUES AND SEEMED FINE WITH THE ANSWERS I PROVIDED. WHEATHER A WARNING LIGHT WENT ON OR NOT I DO NOT KNOW AS I WAS NOT THERE BUT I ALSO TOLD HER TO HAVE [redacted] CHECK THE WARNING LIGHTS TO MAKE SURE THE WERE OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IF NOT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPEAL HER CASE TO [redacted] AS IT WOULD BE A MANUFACTUERS ISSUE/DEFECT. EVERYTHING WAS WORKING PROPERLY WHEN IT WAS SOLD. IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUN WITHOUT COOLANT AND OVERHEATED THAT IS OPERATOR RESPONSABILITY. WE DID WHAT WE COULD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MS NEVERS HAD.
From: Jeff Paxson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:10 PM To: info Subject: Case ID [redacted] I have received the buyer's complaint to the Revdex.com and I understand her frustration. I may be able to help with some of the concerns in the following address, but do need to...
identify that the buyer was not our client. That said, anytime a real estate closing is postponed or cancelled, many parties and innocent victims can fall in the wake. In this transaction, the buyer, the seller, the lender, the title company, each real estate office (myself and my company and my family, included) and many more down the line were all looking forward and expecting the sale to happen on the agreed upon date and time - only to all have it go awry at practically the last minute, as the buyer mentioned. I think that most real estate transactions have the potential to be stressful on the parties involved and from experience, I have found it is easy to place blame on others, but truthfully, as I mention above, I have decided to be broad minded and truly realize that each party often has the same ultimate goal - that is to close on the home at an agreed upon time and with the terms that the parties negotiated toward at the beginning of the transaction. I think the buyer brings up some points that out of context sound quite concerning. If she called my firm, my office and real estate team must follow the state law and guidelines and the ethics of agency at all times. The buyer and seller each signed the purchase agreement - and an entire paragraph covers the guidelines of agency between the agents and their respected client. In this sale, our client was the seller. The buyer calling our firm was a breach of paragraph Y of the purchase agreement (likely an innocent mistake), but a law and regulation that our firm takes quite seriously in respect to dealing with other real estate brokers. Thou shalt not talk directly to the others' client without their broker's knowledge or representation. This may have appeared to be our firm refusing to provide information but it is actually the way that agency is defined and something our office will not waiver or remove integrity in the benefit of the other agent, the agent's client and most importantly, our client. Agency also defines/can limit what we are allowed to convey about our client and we follow that to a letter - even at the risk of being unpopular with others. Our client was unaware of ramifications of his personal tax lien in relation to the title of his home and his ability to sell. He had the home listed prior to hiring our firm and the home didn't sell. When he hired our firm, we asked questions - as with all sellers - of disclosure. His answers were demonstrated on his Residential Seller's Disclosure. These answers matched the disclosure at his prior listing. The reason Indiana requires an insured title is to allow for the title to be searched - as it was after the accepted offer - to protect the buyer and the seller by finding the lien that the buyer mentioned. I employ staff to work 40 plus hours a week on transactions such as this and the buyer's agent was calling and asking for updates and information that didn't exist. She actually asked our office for advice on how to advise her buyer - which by the nature of the questions would absolutely break agency law for us to advise contrary to our seller - especially since at the time that the seller and our firm found out about the defect in the title, we disclosed the information. As for communication, our office was submitted an offer from the buyer's agent via and email that never came through. The agent admitted that she has/had trouble with her emails being sent and received and this was the initial case. The purchase agreement defines what can and would be acceptable forms and mediums of communications and text message is not one of the choices. How would our office know of all emails if we didn't receive them all. I don't know that this is the case but a theory that not all communication had been sent and received. I am disappointed it didn't close as we had all hoped. The buyer and the seller working out a deal outside of the agreement is also beyond the rules of the purchase agreement. I wish that this buyer and seller could have closed. So does the seller. It is frustrating. I also wish I was the buyer's agent. I think I could advise the buyer quite well but the agency agreements are limiting in a case just like this one. For any harm or pain, we are sorry but sympathetic - not apologizing for anything we did wrong. When my children ask me continually, "are we there yet?" On a long drive, and the answer is still "no," I just begin to ignore them and let them know when we are there. This parallels this instance in that the seller was naive to his situation and I don't believe he hired a lawyer, he told me it was someone that he had called from a late night television commercial - the buyer and agents repeated requests for updates - when none existed were prohibitive to progress and the goal that all parties shared - which was trying to successfully close the home to a satisfaction of ALL the families involved. Sent from my iPhone
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/25) */ WHEN [redacted] CONTACTED THE FIAT MANAGER HE TOLD HER TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THE [redacted] DEALERSHIP BECAUSE [redacted] HAS THE CORRECT DIOGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT FOR A [redacted] THE SALES MANAGER AT FIAT THEN WENT WITH [redacted] TO [redacted] AND SPOKE WITH THE SERVICE ADVISOR ABOUT THE VEHICLE AND SHE WAS TOLD THAT SOMETHING IN THE COOLING SYSTEM WAS CRACKED WHICH CAUSED A LEAK AND THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AND DAMAGED THE MOTOR [redacted] THEN WROTE A LETTER TO FIAT OF RENO MANAGER WHICH WAS FORWARED TO ME AND I CALLED MS NEVERS AND EXPLAINDED THAT I HAD CHECKED AND WE DID A SMOG AND SAFTEY BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS SOLD AS REQUIRED BY LAWTHAT SHE WAS OFFERED A SERVICE CONTRACT AT THE TIME OF SALE WHICH SHE DECLINED AND ALSO THE EVEN IF SHE HAD AN EXTENDED SERVICE CONTRACT THAT THAT COVERED MANUFACTURES DEFECTES AND THAT IF SOME OUTSIDE SOURCE OF IMPACT CAUSED THE CRACK IT WOULD NOT BE COVEREDALSO IF IT HAD BEEN CRACKED WHEN SOLD IT WOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR THREE MONTHS AS ENGINES OVERHEAT DUE TO LACK OF COOLANT VERY QUICKLYNOT THREE MONTHS LATER.SHE THANKED ME AND TOLD ME SHE WAS JUST EXPOREING ALL AVENUES AND SEEMED FINE WITH THE ANSWERS I PROVIDEDWHEATHER A WARNING LIGHT WENT ON OR NOT I DO NOT KNOW AS I WAS NOT THERE BUT I ALSO TOLD HER TO HAVE [redacted] CHECK THE WARNING LIGHTS TO MAKE SURE THE WERE OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IF NOT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPEAL HER CASE TO [redacted] AS IT WOULD BE A MANUFACTUERS ISSUE/DEFECTEVERYTHING WAS WORKING PROPERLY WHEN IT WAS SOLDIF THE VEHICLE WAS RUN WITHOUT COOLANT AND OVERHEATED THAT IS OPERATOR RESPONSABILITYWE DID WHAT WE COULD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MS NEVERS HAD
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/01/14) */
*** came in to the dealership looking to buy a FIAT 500x for his wifeHe filled out and signed a credit application form which gives the dealership permission to run his creditAlong with that he was trying to get to a certain low
payment.If someone comes in and goes through the process of filling out a credit application, sits down to try and agree on a price, the only way to give an accurate payment is to run the persons credit to see what interest rate they would qualify for, or if they qualify at allAfter speaking with the employees involved, I was told that they had already run his credit ( which is procedure )that's why the customer thought it was done after he left
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2016/01/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The statement provided by FIAT in their response is not correctI have submitted a Voice Message received by ***, the Customer Care Manager, (uploaded on 1/7/2015) where he clearly states, that my credit should not have and it was a misunderstandingHe further said that a letter would go to *** advising them of this mistake and that my credit should not have been run
Further, there is no possible way that my credit was run while I was at the facility as the application never left the desk we were sitting atOnly once that it was clear, that we would not come to an agreement, I leftIt was only after I left that they ran my creditThey had no reason to run my credit being that we could not come to any agreement, and I clearly told them not to
Again, please refer to the voice mail message left by *** that I uploaded on 1/7/
Final Business Response /* (1000, 68, 2016/07/26) */
Please see document online
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 70, 2016/08/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Inquiry removed from ***- Case closed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/08/24) */
[redacted] Made a phone inquiry about the vehicle in question, he was from out of town and never came into the store. the salesman took the phone call but when he came to a manager to talk about the car he was informed that the vehicle...
had already been dealer traded already to another dealer and was waiting to be picked up by the other dealer. we never ran the customers credit card or took a deposit on it or signed any paperwork. the website stats that cars are subject to pre sale and sometimes it takes a day or so to process taking them off the website. the customer was offered one of the other 4 or 5 like vehicles in stock and he did not want them. we would prefer to retail a car than dealer trade it but it had already been traded and waiting for pick up.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/08/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The dealer response makes this sound like it occurred over a short period of time but after we had agreed to a price and the dealer (the person I talked to said he was the sales manager, not a salesman) had taken my card information 6 days went by without the dealer making any mention of the car being traded. Exactly the opposite the sales manager continued to represent that the vehicle was mine. The dealer says it takes a day or so for the web site to be updated, yet here we are four and a half weeks later and the car still shows as being for sale at the dealer. The cars that I was offered were not the same equipment/option level as the car that I was sold. I still believe the dealer should make some attempt to honor this deal by getting an equal car from another dealer for me, and honoring the price.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 21, 2016/09/01) */
No contract was signed, nothing was negotiated by a sales manager no agreement was reached a customer can come in and make an offer that doesn't mean it will be accepted by the store or the counter offer by the customer. had the customer ended up not wanting the car, changing his mind for any reason we could not hold him to it because there is no contract. all he needs to do is go to a local dealer and negotiate a price and he can buy the car if a dealer will make a deal with him.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2016/09/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did talk to a person who identified himself as the sales manager there. He told me that we had a deal on the car, not once but multiple times over the course of a week while we were waiting for the dealer to prep the car. I was never over the course of the week told anything but the car is mine and that we had a deal. A good dealer would try to get me another car, and not just tell me to drive to LA to get a car (that's where the remaining one's are) It's obvious to me that this dealer is not interested in making things right. I think it's time we agree to disagree on this, and close this discussion.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/25) */
WHEN [redacted] CONTACTED THE FIAT MANAGER HE TOLD HER TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THE [redacted] DEALERSHIP BECAUSE [redacted] HAS THE CORRECT DIOGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT FOR A [redacted]. THE SALES MANAGER AT FIAT THEN WENT WITH [redacted] TO [redacted] AND SPOKE WITH THE...
SERVICE ADVISOR ABOUT THE VEHICLE AND SHE WAS TOLD THAT SOMETHING IN THE COOLING SYSTEM WAS CRACKED WHICH CAUSED A LEAK AND THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AND DAMAGED THE MOTOR. [redacted] THEN WROTE A LETTER TO FIAT OF RENO MANAGER WHICH WAS FORWARED TO ME AND I CALLED MS NEVERS AND EXPLAINDED THAT I HAD CHECKED AND WE DID A SMOG AND SAFTEY BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS SOLD AS REQUIRED BY LAW. THAT SHE WAS OFFERED A SERVICE CONTRACT AT THE TIME OF SALE WHICH SHE DECLINED AND ALSO THE EVEN IF SHE HAD AN EXTENDED SERVICE CONTRACT THAT THAT COVERED MANUFACTURES DEFECTES AND THAT IF SOME OUTSIDE SOURCE OF IMPACT CAUSED THE CRACK IT WOULD NOT BE COVERED. ALSO IF IT HAD BEEN CRACKED WHEN SOLD IT WOULD NOT HAVE RUN FOR THREE MONTHS AS ENGINES OVERHEAT DUE TO LACK OF COOLANT VERY QUICKLY. NOT THREE MONTHS LATER.SHE THANKED ME AND TOLD ME SHE WAS JUST EXPOREING ALL AVENUES AND SEEMED FINE WITH THE ANSWERS I PROVIDED. WHEATHER A WARNING LIGHT WENT ON OR NOT I DO NOT KNOW AS I WAS NOT THERE BUT I ALSO TOLD HER TO HAVE [redacted] CHECK THE WARNING LIGHTS TO MAKE SURE THE WERE OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IF NOT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPEAL HER CASE TO [redacted] AS IT WOULD BE A MANUFACTUERS ISSUE/DEFECT. EVERYTHING WAS WORKING PROPERLY WHEN IT WAS SOLD. IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUN WITHOUT COOLANT AND OVERHEATED THAT IS OPERATOR RESPONSABILITY. WE DID WHAT WE COULD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MS NEVERS HAD.
From: Jeff Paxson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:10 PM To: info Subject: Case ID [redacted] I have received the buyer's complaint to the Revdex.com and I understand her frustration. I may be able to help with some of the concerns in the following address, but do need to...
identify that the buyer was not our client. That said, anytime a real estate closing is postponed or cancelled, many parties and innocent victims can fall in the wake. In this transaction, the buyer, the seller, the lender, the title company, each real estate office (myself and my company and my family, included) and many more down the line were all looking forward and expecting the sale to happen on the agreed upon date and time - only to all have it go awry at practically the last minute, as the buyer mentioned. I think that most real estate transactions have the potential to be stressful on the parties involved and from experience, I have found it is easy to place blame on others, but truthfully, as I mention above, I have decided to be broad minded and truly realize that each party often has the same ultimate goal - that is to close on the home at an agreed upon time and with the terms that the parties negotiated toward at the beginning of the transaction. I think the buyer brings up some points that out of context sound quite concerning. If she called my firm, my office and real estate team must follow the state law and guidelines and the ethics of agency at all times. The buyer and seller each signed the purchase agreement - and an entire paragraph covers the guidelines of agency between the agents and their respected client. In this sale, our client was the seller. The buyer calling our firm was a breach of paragraph Y of the purchase agreement (likely an innocent mistake), but a law and regulation that our firm takes quite seriously in respect to dealing with other real estate brokers. Thou shalt not talk directly to the others' client without their broker's knowledge or representation. This may have appeared to be our firm refusing to provide information but it is actually the way that agency is defined and something our office will not waiver or remove integrity in the benefit of the other agent, the agent's client and most importantly, our client. Agency also defines/can limit what we are allowed to convey about our client and we follow that to a letter - even at the risk of being unpopular with others. Our client was unaware of ramifications of his personal tax lien in relation to the title of his home and his ability to sell. He had the home listed prior to hiring our firm and the home didn't sell. When he hired our firm, we asked questions - as with all sellers - of disclosure. His answers were demonstrated on his Residential Seller's Disclosure. These answers matched the disclosure at his prior listing. The reason Indiana requires an insured title is to allow for the title to be searched - as it was after the accepted offer - to protect the buyer and the seller by finding the lien that the buyer mentioned. I employ staff to work 40 plus hours a week on transactions such as this and the buyer's agent was calling and asking for updates and information that didn't exist. She actually asked our office for advice on how to advise her buyer - which by the nature of the questions would absolutely break agency law for us to advise contrary to our seller - especially since at the time that the seller and our firm found out about the defect in the title, we disclosed the information. As for communication, our office was submitted an offer from the buyer's agent via and email that never came through. The agent admitted that she has/had trouble with her emails being sent and received and this was the initial case. The purchase agreement defines what can and would be acceptable forms and mediums of communications and text message is not one of the choices. How would our office know of all emails if we didn't receive them all. I don't know that this is the case but a theory that not all communication had been sent and received. I am disappointed it didn't close as we had all hoped. The buyer and the seller working out a deal outside of the agreement is also beyond the rules of the purchase agreement. I wish that this buyer and seller could have closed. So does the seller. It is frustrating. I also wish I was the buyer's agent. I think I could advise the buyer quite well but the agency agreements are limiting in a case just like this one. For any harm or pain, we are sorry but sympathetic - not apologizing for anything we did wrong. When my children ask me continually, "are we there yet?" On a long drive, and the answer is still "no," I just begin to ignore them and let them know when we are there. This parallels this instance in that the seller was naive to his situation and I don't believe he hired a lawyer, he told me it was someone that he had called from a late night television commercial - the buyer and agents repeated requests for updates - when none existed were prohibitive to progress and the goal that all parties shared - which was trying to successfully close the home to a satisfaction of ALL the families involved. Sent from my iPhone