Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (2812)	6/19/2002 10:18:40 AM
From: Tradelite	Respond to of 306849

<<Why do we feel some obligation to protect buyers and not sellers?>> My state's real estate rules and regulations do a much better job of emphasizing "caveat emptor" and relieving sellers of ridiculous obligations to buyers than some other states that I'm aware of.

To: GraceZ who wrote (2812)	6/19/2002 10:38:35 AM
From: SBerglowe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

You said.." it is the job of the seller to inform the buyer and make sure they are smart enough to understand.. I don't know that it is the Seller's job to gauge the intelligence of the Buyer, but it is a Seller's responsibility to disclose 'material facts' about the condition of a house especially those facts that may not be readily observable to a Buyer. There was a land mark case in my community involving a real estate sale that occurred in a very nice neighborhood where a Mother had shot her two children. I think both children were killed and the Mother was carted off to a long prison term. The house was sold. After the sale the Buyer learned of what had transpired in the home and sued the real estate company for non disclosure of a material fact....and WON!! Buying a house is not like buying a pair of shoes. Buyers are entitled to know what is going on with the home structurally, mechanically etc.