To: ggersh who wrote (164482 ) 10/29/2020 7:46:05 PM From: TobagoJack Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218554 RE <<Shouldn't keeping tenant always be numero uno dos tres? >> I believe so, for the trouble-free tenants. One time I was approached by real estate agent re some woman wishing to rent I said fine, get goodwill deposit to lock in the deal until contract done Deposit came Then the woman decided she wanted to rent from different lord and wanted her non-refundable deposit back I ignored her she then revealed that she was a lawyer (part of the DD in any case for tenancies in HK) for a big full-service broker, threatened trouble, not realising I am a fair-sized client of the same big broker :0) later she changed her mind and wished to re-engage w/ the apartment she gave up on, and I simply ignored her I love HK law, works really well the court system is not gummed-up by frivolity Another time the property club wished to buy a property, and I put down the non-refundable goodwill deposit (5%) to lock in the deal. subsequently the vendor's staff via big-time law firm tabled a non-standard sale & purchase agreement w/ terms I cannot wisely agree to. I objected, and the law firm and vendor staff essentially told me to stuff it and give up my deposit. the law firm was enormous, and the vendor is part of the largest real estate holdings company in asia my in-law / fellow director was distraught, but as in alas, I knew the wife of the controlling shareholder of the vendor a few hours later I got a call from the staff, profusely apologising, and helpfully suggested we proceed w/ the deal based on a standard sale & purchase agreement my in-law that day thought of me as god-sent, not so much for having anything to do w/ the deal going through, but for the sheer happy satisfaction :0) I do not cotton to lawyers as counter-parties, but I do like the rule of law, and the rule of person.