Seller didn't know?????

[cbottger]

Look at the WDO damage where I have the screwdriver it has a 6 inch shank.

Major water intrusion into this basement.

Past fire damage

The seller lived in this home 27 years and stated he had no knowledge of any of this damage.

I got the call this morning on this basement. This one is going to court buyers young. Invested all of their money into this home to discover this. Husband just back from Iraq 60% disabled. This home did not have an inspection but the buyers stated it was in the contract but failed to be done.

I jumped ship on this one defered to a PE

[Thomas H. Dietrich]

This story points out the importance of getting a home inspection.

Good idea to jump ship.

When I had a home inspection done carpenter ants were found inside the home. When told to the sellers who had no record[disclosure] of such activity, they replied "Oh year, we've been fighting them for about 8 years now, must have skipped our minds."

tom

[rwand1]

Caveat Emptor. Especially the visible damage.

[Kenneth Lott]

Looks like they knew enough to try and hide it with stain kilz and new wood! I am rooting for the buyers on this one. I would show the guy my gun, and tell him I did not know it was loaded!

[rwand1]

Still rather obvious even with attempts to paint/stain.

[Barry Adair]

In a past life I did burn out restoration for a local ins. co.

From my experience the homeowners collected the check and had the work done without a permit by one of the low ballers.

There is no way in heaven or hell a permitted job or real contractor would have allowed that extent of char damaged materials to remain.

Like the VET and his family didn't have enough on their plate. Too Sad

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by cbottger

Look at the WDO damage where I have the screwdriver it has a 6 inch shank.

Major water intrusion into this basement.

Past fire damage

The seller lived in this home 27 years and stated he had no knowledge of any of this damage.

I got the call this morning on this basement. This one is going to court buyers young. Invested all of their money into this home to discover this. Husband just back from Iraq 60% disabled. This home did not have an inspection but the buyers stated it was in the contract but failed to be done.

I jumped ship on this one defered to a PE

I would have run too.

Any ides Charley if the Courts will sympathize with the buyers on this one knowing that an Inspection was not made?

Marcel

[rwand1]

Although the common law doctrine of caveat emptor has long ceased to play any significant part in the sale of goods, it has lost little of its pristine force in the sale of land. In 1931, a breach was created in the doctrine that the buyer must beware, with recognition by an English Court of an implied warranty of fitness for habitation in the sale of an uncompleted house… Otherwise, notwithstanding new methods of house merchandising and, in general, increased concern for consumer protection, caveat emptor remains a force to be reckoned with by the credulous or indolent purchaser of housing property. Lacking express warranties, he may be in difficulty because there is no implied warranty of fitness for human habitation upon the purchase of a house already completed at the time of sale. The rationale stems from the laissez-faire attitudes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the notion that a purchaser must fend for himself, seeking protection by express warranty or by independent examination of the premises. If he fails to do either, he is without remedy either at law or in equity in the absence of fraud or fundamental difference between that which was bargained for and that obtained. [Emphasis in original].

[121]Although on its face caveat emptor appears to offer a vendor a complete defence to any claims made by a purchaser regarding defects in the property (absent specific contractual terms), the doctrine has been attenuated by a number of exceptions. Circumstances where caveat emptor will not operate to deny a plaintiff recovery were summarized by Bennett J. in McCluskie v. Reynolds 1998 CanLII 5384 (BC S.C.), (199, 65 B.C.L.R. (3d) 191, 19 R.P.R. (3d) 218 at para. 53 (S.C.) [McCluskie]:


1. where the vendor fraudulently misrepresents or conceals;


2. where the vendor knows of a latent defect rendering the house unfit for human habitation;


3. where the vendor is reckless as to the truth or falsity of statements relating to the fitness of the house for habitation;


4. where the vendor has breached his duty to disclose a latent defect which renders the premises dangerous.

[cbottger]

Originally Posted by mcyr

I would have run too.

Any ides Charley if the Courts will sympathize with the buyers on this one knowing that an Inspection was not made?

Marcel

Small town Marcel this home was on a street with the same name as the seller named after him. You know the drill. The young folks had already been turned down by one Attorney because of Ethics stated he was friends with the seller.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Although the common law doctrine of caveat emptor has long ceased to play any significant part in the sale of goods, it has lost little of its pristine force in the sale of land. In 1931, a breach was created in the doctrine that the buyer must beware, with recognition by an English Court of an implied warranty of fitness for habitation in the sale of an uncompleted house… Otherwise, notwithstanding new methods of house merchandising and, in general, increased concern for consumer protection, caveat emptor remains a force to be reckoned with by the credulous or indolent purchaser of housing property. Lacking express warranties, he may be in difficulty because there is no implied warranty of fitness for human habitation upon the purchase of a house already completed at the time of sale. The rationale stems from the laissez-faire attitudes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the notion that a purchaser must fend for himself, seeking protection by express warranty or by independent examination of the premises. If he fails to do either, he is without remedy either at law or in equity in the absence of fraud or fundamental difference between that which was bargained for and that obtained. [Emphasis in original].

[121]Although on its face caveat emptor appears to offer a vendor a complete defence to any claims made by a purchaser regarding defects in the property (absent specific contractual terms), the doctrine has been attenuated by a number of exceptions. Circumstances where caveat emptor will not operate to deny a plaintiff recovery were summarized by Bennett J. in McCluskie v. Reynolds 1998 CanLII 5384 (BC S.C.), (199, 65 B.C.L.R. (3d) 191, 19 R.P.R. (3d) 218 at para. 53 (S.C.) [McCluskie]:


1. where the vendor fraudulently misrepresents or conceals;


2. where the vendor knows of a latent defect rendering the house unfit for human habitation;


3. where the vendor is reckless as to the truth or falsity of statements relating to the fitness of the house for habitation;


4. where the vendor has breached his duty to disclose a latent defect which renders the premises dangerous.

Raymound, could you repeat that in Laymens terms, I have no clue as to what you said.
It can't be French, because I could not read it either. ha. ha.

Marcel

[cbottger]

In a past life I did burn out restoration for a local ins. co

.

Ah Barry from your past life can you tell me if there is a test on the burnt lumber that can determine how old the fire was. If there is would shed a lot of light on this subject. Tells who is lying and who's not.

Oh by the way the buyer tried to go to the fire department and search records for past fires on this home guess what the seller was a past fireman on this dept. No records.

[rwand1]

Hi Marcel,

Barring fraud, its Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) they failed to excercise due dilligence in looking at the property themselves with critical eye, and/or failed to retain a professional (home inspector) to report on patently obvious defects.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Unfortunate for the buyers, but,
Most buyers, upon knowing all the facts, seldom back away from their purchase decision and believe the facts or disclosures have all been set on the table.
It is the fear of the unknown, followed by its eventual discovery, which sends people in court.

“Peace of mind" is very relevant in the sale and transfer of residential property…it is the prime reason for including a qualified home inspector in the sales process.
Sellers should always obtain an independent professional property inspection to know the current condition of their property.

Begin by hiring the most qualified home inspector in your area. Once you've got the inspection report, attach a copy to your disclosure statement. Furthermore, explain in your disclosure statement that every effort has been made to discover and report all problematic conditions, but that you urge the buyers to hire their own home inspector, just in case, to ensure that no significant defects were missed by your inspector. In this way, you will have documented an unusually high degree of willingness to disclose all problems. In the unlikely event that surprise defects should surface after the close of escrow, it would appear unlikely that you had deliberately concealed the problems (and should a conflict proceed to legal action, your position would look very good to any fair minded judge).

I wonder if this will be brought up in court?

Marcel

[rwand1]

http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2004-06-05.htm

[Marcel R. Cyr]

I like that Article Raymond.

Marcel