I think we're talking at cross purposes here, kingpins. I'm not disputing anything you have said. What I was alluding to were the personal circumstances of vendors, which can often have an effect on the sale price, be it a sale by auction or private treaty. Let me give the readers just a few examples that I'm sure you are already aware of. Consider deceased estates with multiple beneficiaries where a low offer has a greatly reduced $ impact when split, say x4 ways. Or vendors going through an acrimonious breakup who will often accept a low offer just to escape the partnership. Or vendors with a failing business that need funds urgently. Or vendors where one has lost their job and are experiencing mortgage stress. Or vendors that have already bought elsewhere and may have bridging finance at an exorbitant interest rate. The list goes on, but ultimately these adverse circumstances can and do have an effect on both the vendors and the purchasers who buy. That said, the market will generally dictate the price, but the complex nature of a vendors personal situation cannot be ignored.
As a related side note: Generally speaking estate agents (sales staff) have a poor grasp of commercial in-confidence or privacy legislation, or the difference between client and customer. And of the latter they rarely care. Nine out of ten times they will happily divulge sensitive information (as above) pertaining to the vendor, giving advantage to the purchaser. From the salespersons perspective a lower sales price has little bearing on their commission, so they tend to use this sensitive information to secure a quick sale. I am not condoning this practice, and nor did I allow it to happen in agencies I owned. It was a sackable offence. But the reality is that the majority of RE principal's turn a blind eye or engage in it themselves. Therein lies the some of the ancillary, complexities of RE sales.
