Rogelio Guilherme 🏳️‍🌈

Ppl will misread your sentence because they can't read and then tell you to take accountability for how it made them feel because they can't read

Do not fail to read the post from President Trump this AM. There will be scores of books written about this war, even as there were in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam etc. This post by the President will figure prominently in the best of those books.

There seems to be a significant amount of misunderstanding about this situation. For residential deals on the MLS in Georgia, the typical sequence of events in the early stages of a transaction are: 1. Offer (and counteroffer/s, etc.) 2. Acceptance 3. Due Diligence period begins with buyer free to terminate for any reason during DD. Earnest money typically fully refundable if buyer terminates during DD. 4. Prior to end of DD, another round of negotiations, typically involving requests for repairs or price reduction. Both sides fully expect this round to take place when signing the initial purchase agreement, unless the purchase agreement is specifically structured to preclude it. Deal can (and often does) terminate if both sides don't agree to a revised price and terms here. What Jacob describes is: 1. An offer 2. Acceptance 3. DD begins 4. Another round of negotiations involving a request for price reduction prior to DD's end. In other words, he's describing a completely standard, normal, not remotely unexpected sequence of events for this type of transaction. He's not price dropping a 90 year old widow two days before closing. He's not price dropping another investor after agreeing to what were understood as final terms. He's just going through the normal process for an MLS resi transaction in our state, with a seller who has retained professional representation that should have prepared the seller for this sequence to unfold. It would be surprising if there WASN'T a second round of negotiations during DD, particularly for a fixer upper where it would be normal to find stuff in DD that would justify a price reduction. Now, things one could quibble about: 1. Did his client "need" the price reduction in DD to move forward? If they locked the deal up at $190k and were only able to assign it for $190k, then it seems reasonable to say that the client, a business entity pursuing its business interests, requires a price reduction to move forward. One could quibble with the wording, but it seems like a pretty straightforward way to phrase it. 2. But isn't Jacob the client? No. The client is a business entity. Jacob is not a business entity. He is a person. In Georgia, entities can own property but they cannot be licensed as real estate agents, only people can be. Jacob is an agent. However, he is a principal of the business entity, and if he's required to disclose that then he should. 3. Is it unethical to make an offer with the intent to renegotiate during DD? If it is, then I'd guess something like 95%+ of MLS-listed home transactions in Georgia are unethical. 4. Yeah but there's a difference in renegotiating after discovering something in DD vs making an offer knowing full well that you're going to renegotiate regardless of what you find in DD, isn't there? Sure. And if a seller wants to preclude this possibility, there are ways to do so when structuring the initial purchase agreement & if that didn't happen then there are ways for a seller to guard against it in the DD round of negotiation itself.

Q: Are you attending your son's wedding this weekend? TRUMP: Uhhhh. He'd like me to go. I'm gonna try and make it. I said, 'This is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things.'

NOT GOOD

Unverified accounts on Twitter (X) now have a daily limit of 50 posts, 200 replies, and 500 messages.

20 years ago today, Marissa Cooper died in ‘The O.C.’