For decades, a developer selling condominium units across state lines had a federal reason to promise a delivery date. The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act required federal registration unless a sale fell inside an exemption, and the exemption most condominium developers reached for, at 15 U.S.C. section 1702(a)(2) with rules at 24 C.F.R. section 1710.4, applied where the contract obliged the seller to erect the building within two years of the buyer signing. Courts read that obligation strictly. A contract letting the developer escape by handing back a deposit did not qualify, because a buyer who can only recover his own money holds no real promise.
That reason has gone. Public Law 113-167 took effect on 26 March 2015 and exempted condominium units from the Act’s registration and disclosure requirements, leaving its anti-fraud provisions in place. The machinery that used to push a completion obligation into the contract no longer reaches a condominium sale. What is left in its place is negotiation.
Eric McNeil works at the intersection of those relationships in the Miami to Palm Beach corridor, connecting luxury developers with athletes and entertainers exploring pre-construction opportunities. His approach focuses on creating alignment between developers and participating partners from the outset, with each side having a clear understanding of the relationship and the expectations surrounding it.
Certainty, running in two directions
Both parties are trying to buy the same commodity from each other, and neither is paying for it with price. What a developer wants from a buyer is a closing he can rely on. It shows up as evidence of funds instead of a financing contingency, as limits on assigning the contract, and often as a bar on marketing the residence for resale before the deed changes hands. A sponsor carrying a well-known purchaser through a construction period is exposed if that purchaser disappears late, because the gap in the release schedule arrives with a story attached, and the story reaches the other buyers first.
What the buyer wants is a delivery he can rely on. It shows up as an outside date with consequences attached to it, as force majeure language narrow enough to cover genuine catastrophe rather than ordinary construction difficulty, and as remedies that reach past the return of a deposit. A buyer whose only recourse for a long delay is his money back has written the developer a free option on his patience.
McNeil’s approach treats the interests of the developer and the participating partner as interconnected rather than inherently opposed. The goal is to identify opportunities where both sides have reasons to follow through and where the structure is designed to create alignment from the beginning.
Selection order, and the terms that never reach a price list
Where several buyers enter the same phase of a release, who chooses first is worth more than most of them realise, and it is rarely settled in writing. Stacks are not equal. The line at one corner of a floor plate has a view the line at the other corner does not, and in a bayfront tower that difference is permanent. Selection order decides who gets it, as does the sequence in which the developer releases floors and whether a line has been held back for the model.
Other terms sit in the same category. Whether two adjoining residences may be combined, and who pays for the structural review that answers it. Whether a terrace can carry the weight of what the buyer has in mind. Whether the finish schedule is attached as an exhibit, which is what turns a substitution into a documented amendment rather than a phone call after the fact.
None of that is necessarily a concession or a discount. It reflects the broader details that can shape a pre-construction opportunity beyond the headline price. McNeil’s approach is to understand those considerations early and work alongside the appropriate parties and advisers so expectations are clear from the outset.
Instalment timing is a construction question
Payment timing is where alignment either happens or quietly fails to. A developer building a tower has a cost curve that is anything but flat, and would rather receive money as the building consumes it. That argues for tying instalments to construction events he can point at rather than to calendar dates that may bear no relation to where the project actually is. The buyer would rather pay against evidence than against a schedule drafted before anything was dug.
The two preferences are compatible, which is the reason to write them together. A structure that has reached a stated floor is verifiable by both parties and by anyone they send to look. A date is not evidence of anything. Where the sides still disagree it is about which event counts and who certifies it, a much smaller argument than the one they avoided.
The name, the camera and the press release
The most common rupture between a developer and a well-known buyer has nothing to do with money at all. A sponsor may assume that a recognisable purchaser amounts to an announcement. The purchaser may assume the transaction is private. Both hold that view sincerely, neither has said it out loud, and the collision comes the morning a press release goes out. When it does, the developer loses more than one customer, because the buyer population at this level is small and word moves through it in days.
The terms that prevent it are specific and easy to draft. Whether the developer may use the buyer’s name in any material at all. Whether an announcement requires written approval, and from whom. Whether the finished residence may be photographed for the developer’s collateral, for the architect’s portfolio or for a magazine, and whether the buyer’s own designer may publish images of work the buyer paid for. Whether those answers change at delivery.
The answer can be no on every line, and frequently is. What matters on McNeil’s side of the work is that the answer is decided rather than discovered.
Introductions, bounded
The relationship between a developer and a high-profile participant can extend beyond the purchase itself. Depending on the opportunity, an athlete or entertainer may bring visibility, cultural relevance, relationships or other strategic value to a development, while the developer provides access to a distinctive real estate opportunity. McNeil’s approach is to make sure the nature of that relationship is understood from the outset rather than left to assumption.
That clarity is central to creating alignment. Where a talent partnership includes introductions, appearances, marketing participation or other involvement, defining those expectations early helps both sides understand the value each is bringing to the relationship.
The amendment nobody wants to send
Florida law puts a lever in the buyer’s hand that shapes the whole relationship. Under section 718.503 of the Florida Statutes, a purchaser buying from a developer may cancel within fifteen days of executing the agreement and receiving the documents the developer is required to deliver, and may cancel again within fifteen days of receiving any amendment that materially alters or modifies the offering in a manner adverse to the buyer. The statute is explicit that budget figures are estimates and that a change in cost is not, by itself, a material adverse change in the offering.
The lever is rarely pulled, because pulling it means giving up the residence. Its real function is to make a developer careful about what he sends. A sponsor who tells a buyer about a design change months before the amendment arrives is managing that risk. A sponsor who lets the paperwork be the first news is inviting a buyer to reconsider the whole transaction at the worst available moment.
Alignment, in the sense McNeil uses the word, reduces to that. Two competent parties almost never fall out over a term they negotiated. They fall out over something one of them assumed and the other found out about from a document.
This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security, and it is not investment, financial, legal or tax advice. Real estate and private market investments carry risk, including loss of principal, and nothing described here is a prediction of future results. Readers should consult their own licensed advisers before making any financial decision.
