Who has to bear the S&P agreement cost?
Some people said buyer. Some people said 50% buyer & 50% seller.
Legally who has to bear the cost?

Interesting question, but I think there really isn't a law on which party must bear the cost of S&P.
But from my multiple purchasing experience, I've never paid a single cent on S&P cost.
It has always been the seller paying the S&P cost.

Edward Chen wrote:
Interesting question, but I think there really isn't a law on which party must bear the cost of S&P.
But from my multiple purchasing experience, I've never paid a single cent on S&P cost.
It has always been the seller paying the S&P cost.

Really? Are you talking about property sold from developer? Usually developer give "free" legal fees, although its already included in the price of the house.

Usually if buy and sell between two individuals its usually the buyer pays the legal fees, as the buyer is the one who needs to engage a lawyer.

sometimes buyer and seller can make their own arrangements...

i don't think that's true.

when buying from a developer, the developer nearly always pays. this is because the developer has a standard document which the buyer just signs.

but when you're buying from an individual it's different. the buyer and the seller EACH pay for their lawyer. those costs are fixed by the government but most lawyers will give at least 40% off, although one lawyer told me the discount is technically illegal!

some sellers use the buyer's lawyer to save costs but that can be very dangerous.

normally developer will absorb the S&P fee if the property still under construction.

but when buying someone else property, it's usually paid by the purchaser unless the vendor willing to pay for it...

btw, the S&P fee is not cheap...... :_blink_:

It seems everyone will prefer to pay a high price for the purchase of their dream property
but somehow, legal fees is unpopular or the last number on any favourite lists of a hopeful
purchaser.

Strange but of course, a misconception. Why be so indifferent to solicitors who prepare an
agreement when the agreement is really to protect the interests of both the vendor and the
purchaser. Nothing so dangerous about protection of interests as fair as the law is concerned.

The agreement must be legal and valid before it can be binding whether this is a scheduled
agreement from the developer ( according to the Housing Act ) or a sub-sale agreement over
the same property when sub-sale occurs. At the end, it is still about transfer from the
vendor to the purchaser so that the buyer gets what he pays for, money for property and
vice versa in the vendor's stand.

If money is a trade item to exchange for a house for example by 'barter trade', this would
mean the purchaser would have to carry a lot of money to exchange for a house. Conveyancing
therefore simplify all the undertakings and transaction between the bank, developer, vendor
and purchaser through the legal services of solicitors to smoothen the process till completion.

This is just as simple and straightforward as that.
No tricks and no magic in obligations and performance.
Just pure honest work for honest remuneration according to the scale fees, honestly.

As a solicitor, the honour of honesty marks the nobel worth of the professionalism of
lawyers. This is for real.

To stand equal to the best of all, we can only be as honest as we can be.
To survive, also, honesty is the distinguishing mark of good faith and this is no joke.
After all, who likes to be cheated and the more one cheats, the worse the reciprocal effect
would be. Cheater don't grow rich in law, not in wealth neither !

Believe me, no organic farming or whatever compound can transform a cheater into some kind
of greatness in real practice.

The sound of law already demands respect. Who can be above the law, then ?

The client therefore who bears the cost of legal fees should rest with some peace of mind
when you find an honest lawyer. You can consider me and who knows, you may like to drop
a note in my email address hfchuraymond@yahoo.com.

Sounds real honest because it is as simple as that. Honesty is not naive, though.

Paul Barton wrote:
i don't think that's true.

when buying from a developer, the developer nearly always pays. this is because the developer has a standard document which the buyer just signs.

but when you're buying from an individual it's different. the buyer and the seller EACH pay for their lawyer. those costs are fixed by the government but most lawyers will give at least 40% off, although one lawyer told me the discount is technically illegal!

some sellers use the buyer's lawyer to save costs but that can be very dangerous.
this i have to agree with u.... i read in the star, the lawyer ran away with the money...

those lawyers give their colleague bad impression.

Don't know where you read that the Sale & Purchase cost has to be borne by the purchaser's developer and not the purchaser. This is alien from our local Housing Developers ( Control & Licensing ) Act 1966 and Regulations.

No lawyer worth his/her value will advise that all the developer does is to only sell and forget about developing the housing project into a housing development where people can live and earn to live.
The legal fees could be absorbed in the purchase price but NEVER is the developer to charge for a separate legal fees for such 'cost to transfer' to the purchaser. The developer is not governed under the Legal Profession Act 1976 neither is the client but the solicitor is.

As for the few who claims they can reduce their fees to compromise on the standard, I dare to say that,
all of them, are 'dead wood good for the fire' !

There is a clear demarcation between lawyers and non-lawyers in this field. Lawyers CANNOT and ARE GOD FORBIDDEN to give any form of DISCOUNT. You can be in 'DEAD TROUBLE' in you do. This is a control profession and the Legal Profession Act 1976 do not compromise on this standards.

Paul, you have a lot to explain and possibly to the Anti-Corruption for such malpractices if you are involved.
This is Malaysia. We don't practice double standard for foreigners.

I am sure the police and the law enforcers would like to have a cup of tea with you, if you really misdirected and tempted your lawyer to give you such discount which is totally forbidden in Malaysia, regardless of which state. The media has always put lawyers like the devil's advocate when really, the client can be no better, if the 'dark angel' is really your worst nightmare! You certainly do not wished to be in such hot soup.

I hope this forum will be able to be used to share knowledge and experience for the sake of good will.

a very good reminder...! everyone pls take note..!

Like the saying goes, "what goes around, comes around."

Hope this forum is a platform for free flow of information.

So much to find out and participate.

May be we can get people from other parts of the world to join in and give their views.

HI,

Anyone can give me opinion because i'm buying three properties at the same time but different location JB and KL, shall i use three diff.banker lawyer to do the S&P for each property or shall i engage one lawyer to do my three S&P? Which is the best to me? or have any other better option, can share?

Thank you.

Since you are considering properties at two distant location, factors like
travelling, time and feedback from your solicitor is important.

You may consider getting some opinion from those who have opted for one with
respect to another since the real test is the test of time.