Seller wants to extend closing date a week prior to agreed closing date, can we sue for damages?

We are the buyers of a condo. The seller and I have agreed
upon a closing date of July 5th, 2016. On the evening of
June 24th he had asked if we can extend until July 15th
move out date for him. Unfortunately, our lease is up and
we need to move out physically in to our new home, we
have deliveries going to the new home that have
cancelation fees and we also asked for non paid days off to
move during that week. Our purchasing agreement shows
we are signing this property as a primary residency and
closing date was for June 18, 2016 originally. We then
signed an eddendum to extend once already for the seller to
July 5th, 2016. He now wants to extend again to July 15th a
week prior to closing. We were thinking wages lost, cost of
living after our lease is up, delivery of goods and services,
and extension fees charged by lender would be our

Asked on June 26, 2016 under Real Estate Law, California


B.H.F., Member, Texas State Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 4 years ago | Contributor

Your remedies are contractual in nature.... so your remedies depending on what the contract for purchase provides.  If the seller has the right, per the contract and with your consent, to extend the closing date-- then the penalties for that extension depend on your agreement.  If the agreement does not require you to agree to extend.... then don't agree to extend.  If the agreement has a forced extension provision, then you will need to invoke the provisions that relate to any holding over. 
If he refuses to sell and there is not a provision for him cancelling, then you do have a right to sue for breach of contract.... as long as there is nothing in the addedum that provides for otherwise.
Basically, you need to gather all of your documents and let a real estate attorney review them to what contractual remedies you do or do not have.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.