Their Client Was Ready to Buy the Home. Then Came the Curveball.
Kanebridge News
Share Button

Their Client Was Ready to Buy the Home. Then Came the Curveball.

How last-minute demands almost derailed these deals

By AMY GAMERMAN
Thu, Jan 19, 2023 9:08amGrey Clock 3 min
Q: Has a buyer ever thrown a curveball at a deal, making a request that almost derailed the sale?

Frances Katzen, broker and head of the Katzen Team, Douglas Elliman Real Estate, New York City

I had a buyer who was adamant about having a very quiet apartment. He was a nice guy, very smart, but he had an issue with noise. He didn’t want to have any kind of impact from the city once he stepped into his home.

I worked with him for nine months. We found an apartment on the East Side, a one-bedroom on a side street that we visited 12 times. He wanted to know what day the garbage trucks came and where the building’s mechanicals were, like for the elevator. He wanted to understand what time of day the street got busiest and what kind of riffraff was there. The apartment wasn’t on a particularly high floor, and he wanted to know how noise carried.

We went back during business hours. Normally, we stop showing at 6 at night, but we went back on a Saturday at 8 p.m. to hang out and see what was going on. After that, he asked if he could come back on a weekend morning. He asked people in the lobby of the building what they thought. The seller’s broker was getting pissed off.

After going back and forth, we struck a deal. We had an accepted offer. Then at the 11th hour, he turned around and said he would like the seller to install soundproof windows.

The seller was like, “You know what? I’ve bent over giving you access, you jackass.” But eventually they decided to do it. We all had to chip in for the windows. I threw in a little bit to show my support. It was like $12,000. We were doing a triple-glaze and my client wanted them to be attractive. It took weeks.

We’re at the closing, and he says, “After further consideration, I just feel like I’m rushing into this.”

I said, “Stop—you’ve been trying to do this with me for nine months.”

He said, “I just feel like maybe I should wait.”

Finally, I said, “Do you really want to be out there paying rent?”

And he said, “OK.” He has been happy since, but it’s always such a bloody process.

Peter Torkan, founder and managing partner, The Agency Toronto, Toronto

It was a 26,000-square-foot home: 10 bedrooms, 16 bathrooms, an indoor swimming pool, indoor spa, a tennis court and a beautiful water fountain in the backyard—you name it. I represented the seller, who was a billionaire.

I showed the house to a billionaire couple. They went through the house and absolutely fell in love with it. They went back for a second visit, and then they went for a third time with a feng shui master. The feng shui master went through the whole house and approved it. The tour took about 1½ hours, at least. While they were in the house, the buyers ran into the housekeeper and started talking to her. She had been there three or four years and was extremely familiar with the house.

They submitted an offer. We went back and forth, and finally an offer of $15.888 million was accepted. There were two hooks. The seller had over $1 million in furniture in the house, and the buyer wanted every piece of furniture to be included—free of charge. The second hook was a nut-job clause: The housekeeper to stay with the house. They made it a contingency of the sale.

I told the agent, “You want over $1 million worth of furniture. If the seller is willing to sell it to you, maybe we can negotiate. But this condition that the
housekeeper stays in the house—I can’t demand that.”

If the seller had signed the offer and the housekeeper refused to stay, the whole deal would have fallen apart because of that stupid contingency. It took 31 days of back and forth and back and forth. The buyer wanted the furniture in the main bedroom, the dining room, the family room.

We decided to give them a few things to make them happy, throw in certain pieces of furniture. But the buyer was adamant: The lady had to stay.

Finally, I lost it. I told the buyer’s agent, “It’s impossible. How can you demand somebody stay? Maybe they don’t like your face. Let’s cancel the deal. You go ahead and buy something else.”

This was just a bluff, but I’m a good poker player. The next day the agent called me and said, “We are going to remove that condition.”

Afterward, I found out that the housekeeper actually did stay. I assume they made a deal. And funny enough, the sellers left behind a $100,000 Bang & Olufsen sound system and TV. It was humongous.



MOST POPULAR

As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.

Limited to 630 units, Lamborghini’s latest Urus Capsule pushes personalisation further than ever, blending hybrid performance with over 70 bespoke design combinations.

Related Stories
Property
AUSTRALIA’S PROPERTY BOOM IS MASKING A DEEPER ECONOMIC PROBLEM
By Paul Miron, Opinion 01/05/2026
Property of the Week
PROPERTY OF THE WEEK: BOUTIQUE BYRON RETREAT WITH FIVE-STAR RETURNS
By Kirsten Craze 01/05/2026
Property
REVEALED: THE REAL OPPORTUNITIES IN AUSTRALIA’S PROPERTY MARKET
By Staff Writer 28/04/2026
AUSTRALIA’S PROPERTY BOOM IS MASKING A DEEPER ECONOMIC PROBLEM

As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.

By Paul Miron, Opinion
Fri, May 1, 2026 3 min

For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy. 

What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored. 

Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.  

Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed. 

And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.  

More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards. 

That distinction matters. 

For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process. 

But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now. 

The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up. 

Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.  

Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery. 

The result is a system under pressure from all angles. 

Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere. 

Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.  

The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system. 

This is where the uncomfortable question emerges. 

Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth? 

As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself. 

But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable. 

It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in housing. 

The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing. 

Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment. 

This brings the policy debate into sharper focus. 

Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time. 

That is the paradox. 

Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving. 

It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool. 

Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation. 

So where does that leave Australia? 

At a crossroads. 

The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth. 

The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline. 

But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity. 

The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky. 

It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out. 

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital. 

MOST POPULAR

Warmer minimalism, tactile materials and wellness focused layouts are redefining luxury interiors as homeowners design for comfort, connection and lasting appeal.

Powerhouse real estate couple Avi Khan and Kaylea Sayer welcome their daughter while balancing record-breaking careers, proving success and family can grow side by side.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Pop Stars: Six Champagnes For Every Festive Moment
By Jeni O'Dowd 21/11/2025
Property
FINAL RELEASE AT OPHORA TALLAWONG OFFERS QUALITY APARTMENTS UNDER $700K WITH RARE BUYER PROTECTIONS 
By Staff Writer 19/08/2025
Lifestyle
Bell & Ross Takes Flight With High-Performance Timepieces
By Jeni O'Dowd 04/11/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop