I'm sorry, but I cannot argue with stupid people. You clearly have not read the judgement, and if you have, you certainly do not have a sufficient grasp of the subject to be able to understand why it might have severe consequences for residential developers.
So basically you give up! Probably a good idea Walter. Stick to pretending you're a rock god, the lawyer thing requires too much research to try and make yourself look anything close to credible!
I'd love for you to explain that analogy as it suggests you have, once again, demonstrated that you just don't understand what you're talking about. Poor old Walter is throwing windmills! Please do educate me. I find your sermons incredibly entertaining. You're a bit like David Brent!
Much as I'm revitted by this episode of Twilight Zone I've found myself in, just thought I'd say that saying a Land Trader is an Estate Agent is like saying a Mortgage Bond Trader is a Mortgage Broker. Or in layman's terms like saying the old biddy who was your Cooking Teacher at school is a Michelin Star Chef
A "land trader," unless he actually owns the land, who finds land for someone else to buy, is an estate agent. He earns his money by being paid a commission. If he owns the land, then he's what's known as a "seller" (if he sells the land), or a "developer" (if he re-develops the land). Someone who finds land for someone else and who brokers a deal is called an "estate agent." There are many kinds of estate agent. For example, there is the kind that most will be familiar with, namely, those parasites who sit in their offices waiting for sellers to come to them with their properties, at which point the estate agent will go and take some photos, and then sit around some more, waiting for buyers to come to his office (after seeing the photos). When the buyer decides to buy, the estate agent's next task is to harrass the solicitor as much as possible, because, by now, he is impatient for his commission, which typically comes in at two or even three times the conveyancing costs, even though the solicitor does all of the hard work. Then there are glorified estate agents, that breed of arrogant parasite that likes to think he's not an estate agent, but clearly is, because what he does is essentailly the same thing as the other kind of estate agent, namely act as the pip-squeak go-between, putting seller in touch with buyers. The only difference of any real significance is that the latter is a bespoke version of the former, and takes a more targetted approach. I'm sure there's a bit more to it than that, but I'm confident I have set out the bare essentials.
In my old business (The City) if you weren't the actual owner, or genuine end buyer of something, you were a broker. Pure and simple.
Bollox. It depends on the nature of your job, not the name. A mortgage bond trader is not the same as a mortgage broker. One is corporate the other is retail ffs. Stop arguing over words and understand the nature of the role ffs. It's the same for a land trader!
Yes, a "trader" is completely different from a "broker," and neither of them are agents (ie. bound by the law of agency). I can see it all, now that you have explained it to me, Treble.
I'm not explaining anything to you HIAG. Why would I? I was laughing at your stupity Much like the posters before me.
A land trader buys land (or a site or a building) and then sells it at a later date. Sometimes they will get a planning consent or a change of use, other times if they bought well they will just trade it on for a profit. So they buy land and then they trade it hence the term land trader. Job titles are sometimes self explanatory. For example a man who works for the police is a policeman. A woman who works for the police is a policewoman. A man who works down the docks is a docker. A woman who works down the docks is a prostitute. I'm not sure how one of Britain's finest legal minds is struggling to understand that. I do agree with your views on estate agents though. Then again, I suspect Walter will be telling anyone who gets cornered by him in the pub tonight that he took 8 wickets at Trent Bridge this morning.
the Stockjobber (like myself) sets the market prices, or in today's terms the Market Maker, and he can buy and sell to a broker, or the Stockjobber may be also the principal as he will trade for himself. The middle man between a client in a transaction is a broker by definition as he acts for one party of the trade and is not at any time the principal.
@Schteeve So, basically, you buy bits of land and flip them on to developers, rather than develop them yourself. You say you make planning applications (presumably to improve the value of the land, prior to re-sale), and yet you were not aware of a key decision that affects your industry, and neither do you see it as having any significance for you... You can pour as much scorn on me as you want, it's like water off a duck's back. Ultimately, nothing you say affects who I am or what I do. If some anonymous poster on an internet forum, with a massive chip on his shoulder, wants to have a pop at someone he doesn't know, well, that hardly compares with the starving millions in Africa, does it! However, what is a fact, is that your cluelessness could cost you, or those who employ you, money. Clever developers are already quizzing local authorities about how they intend to deal with planning applications, in the wake of the decision. Several of my clients, on my advice, certainly, have done this. My suspicion is that the decision is going to have an adverse affect on the market, and that its affects will be seen working very quickly, since I cannot imagine that any local planning authority is going to continue to implement a policy that has been adjuged by the High Court to have broken the planning laws. But, don't you worry about it, Schteeeve. You go back to sleep, pal.
That said, if you, typically, trade in land that will be re-developed with more than 10 residential units, then, no, the decision is not likely to have an adverse impact on your business. Similarly, if the purpose of the re-development is, from the start, the construction of social housing.
Being involved in any branch of the law (outside of the largest city firms) is hardly a "fantasy" job, these days. If I had my time all over again, I certainly would not choose law as a profession.
Whilst adhering to food hygiene regulations is technically working with the law, I'm afraid it doesn't make you a Lawyer mate
