Buying a property is always a challenge, especially when there are some differences in the views of the prospective buyer and property sellers. Because of such differences, a conflict of interest may arise and evoke some ethical considerations of how a problem should be resolved. If the owners of the property have put a covenant in the deed for limiting buyers’ uses of the property, there will be no opportunity to tear the house down and build a new one instead. On the other hand, if no such legal action is in place, the buyer is free to do with the property whatever he or she wants. Since the question did not include any specifics of whether the couple legally restricted the usage of their property by potential buyers, then the issue of honesty is the only one open for discussion in this case.
In short, it may be a more rational decision to tell the owners that their house could be torn down to free space for a much more modern building that will cater to the needs and the taste of the new owner. By sharing plans, the buyer will show that he or she honors the business transaction with the former owners of the property and would like to give them access to any information relevant to the case. There is nothing ethical in the deliberate withholding of important information sellers may regard as paramount; sooner or later, they will find out about the deceit. Therefore, regardless of the possible adverse effects of telling the truth, the prospective buyer should share his or her intentions to build a new house. Of course, this decision will have both positive and negative implications.
As to the positive outcomes of the decision to tell the property owners that the seller is planning to build a new house, there can be a strengthening of the relationship between the two parties, as honesty is always valued, especially in the sphere of business transactions. It will be ineffective to lie about the plans regarding the property since a friend or a family member of the couple can pass by their property later on and notice that there is an entirely different house there.
Indirect discovering the bad news will hurt more than hearing about them from the future buyer in person. If the buyer shows an image of what the new house will look like and how well it will be incorporated into the property itself, the owners can change their mind and allow for such a change to occur. The buyer must explain that the couple owns the property of his or her dreams and that it will be taken care of to the best ability possible.
The couple wants to sell their house and land, not to find a keeper that will maintain the property in pristine condition. If they had this goal, they would not be looking for a buyer but for a person whom they will pay for the upkeep, which is a completely different scenario. The third positive implication of telling the truth is preventing oneself from any regrets in the future. If the truth does not come out during the negotiations, the buyer can later feel guilt for not revealing his or her plans and misleading the elderly couple that loved their land and house. This point is the most important since it is imperative to tell the owners that their property will be valued, appreciated, and given a “new life.” By offering a positive perspective, the buyer will be likely to bring to couple to his or her side and avoid any confrontations and regrets in the future.
On the other end of the spectrum, it’s worth mentioning that the couple will not appreciate the plans of the potential buyer and may refuse to sell the house and the land. However, this is their decision, and there is nothing to be done about that. At least they make such a decision by having all relevant information about the future of their property and not being tricked into thinking that their house will remain untouched. If the owners refuse, the buyer will have an opportunity to look for other options that may cater to his or her needs, however sad it may be not to get the dream property. Apart from owners refusing to sell their property, there are no other negative implications.
If to look at the recommended course of action from the ethical/unethical perspective, it can be briefly stated that telling the truth is always a moral decision. By putting the decision, to tell the truth on the SINS scale, it will fall under the category of appropriate action. There were no attacks on an opponent’s network, false promises, misrepresentation, or inappropriate information gathering. Instead, the buyer preferred to follow the untraditional competitive bargaining and avoided utilizing an anchoring strategy to deceive the opponent.
My worldview and the ethical perspective had a tremendous impact on the shaping of the recommendation, to be honest with the elderly couple when buying their property. Life experiences taught me that truth would eventually come out no matter what you do.
Thus, in the case of negotiating a business deal with individuals who care a lot about their property, it is imperative to stay honest and open about the intentions of the prospective buyer. In many cases, other people will not agree with the recommendation, to tell the truth, especially when it comes to buying and selling property. More often than not, sellers will lie about the year their house was established or will try to hide either big or small problems the house has, which goes against the ethical principle of revealing all information that will influence the outcome of a business deal. There is also a saying that it is important to treat others how you want others to treat you, so in the case of buying property, one does not want to be misled regarding the important information about that property.
Thus, by telling the truth about the intentions of tearing down the house, the buyer may receive valuable information in return. To conclude, the recommendation to tell the truth to property owners may have both positive and negative implications in the long run. However, honesty is a quality that is often rare to find in the modern world, so the decision to be open may lead to the strengthening of the relationship between the buyer and the sellers as well as the subsequent property deal.