posted 15 years ago
A 'fair' price is entirely subjective - if the buyer and seller agree, some say that is fair price. If someone thinks that their land is worth $1,000 per acre, and they are able to sell it for $2,000 an acre, who is that fair or unfair to? If the buyer then turns around and finds gold or oil or sells it to a real estate developer for $10,000 an acre, is that fair or unfair?
Legally, a seller is usually required to accurately represent land that is being sold, including defects. There may a prescribed form for doing the dance of making an offer (which may be legally binding), and for negotiating, accepting and closing the sale. But that is the the extent of fairness in terms of the law - honesty with respect to certain aspects of the transaction, no guidance on the price.
Another way of defining fair is to look at what comparable land sold for in that area recently. Reasonable from one perspective, but it doesn't always account for differences between 'comparables' or directly determine what sellers are expecting or willing to accept.. it is an average or representative value, an estimate.
Or we can term it as a ratio of the {value to the buyer} compared to the {cost to the buyer}. If you get something whose value equals or exceeds what you paid for it, that is generally considered a good deal. Unfortunately, while cost is objective (number of currency units something sells for) the value to the buyer is usually partially or entirely psychological and also involves
speculation on a future return (either from use of the land or eventual sale).
In terms of paying as little as possible for land in a given region, you need to know the market, make an offer you consider to be on the low side, and be prepared to have it rejected. If you don't like rejection or simply 'have' to buy a particular parcel, you can offer more. But that is not cheap, guy.