sdjfk

[s3k]

dfsd

[synaptech]

The offer was conditional on having a satisfactory inspection and if not satisfactory, letting the [buyer] remedy the situation. Even after he remedies the leakage, do we still have the power to pull out?

Was this the actual wording? My conditional was upon satisfactory inspection - period. I think you need to look at the exact wording.

[s3k]

..

[s3k]

Exact wording: ...satisfactory to the Buyer and, if not satisfactory to the Buyer, a report revealing deficiencies in the property which the Seller is willing and able to remedy.

If the seller does some shoddy patch work, I guess that would not count as remedying the deficiency?

[CheapScotsman]

You need to talk to your real estate lawyer but without the exact working of it all, it appears that you have two options

a) Allow the seller to do what he wants; take it and buy the place ... I wouldn't choose this option

b) Tell the seller that ... the inspection is NOT "satisfactory to the Buyer and, if not satisfactory to the Buyer, a report revealing deficiencies in the property which the Seller is willing and able to remedy" where the report says ... "The inspector suggested having someone cut out the cement patio a meter away from the home and having the grading looked at. ... at which time the seller will balk (due to cost) and the sale will NOT go through, you will get your deposit back.

This is the option I would choose as a buyer, however, if I was the seller, I would decline to fix it, lose the sale and sell to somebody else whose inspectors wouldn't come back with the same recommendation that yours did.

[pintobean]

Without actually seeing your APS and going over your conditions word for word, I can only speculate, so take my advice with a grain of salt...

Here's how I see things: the power is all yours.

Your inspector provided you with an inspection report that said that the status of the home was "unsatisfactory". Since the APS says that the owner is allowed to remedy the situation, the owner is going to try to do so...the problem is that the owner is trying to remedy the situation in a cheap manner, and is not following the suggestions of your inspector to cut out the patio etc.

So I would suggest that you tell the owner that you are willing to let him try his own remedy instead of your inspector's remedy, but he has to do so at his own cost and then has to pay for your inspector to do a follow-up inspection. If the results of that inspection are satisfactory, then you will go through with the deal. If the results are not satisfactory, then the owner has to either let you walk away from the deal or voluntarily pay for whatever additional remedy is required or suggested by your inspector. Obviously you would need to add the above in writing as an ammendment to the APS.

I suspect that your inspector's follow-up report would have a big chance of still being "unsatisfactory" since his suggestions would not have been followed...so if you still really want the home even with the leak issue only partially rectified, then you can use the "walk away" rights to negotiate a reduction of the purchase price and then use the money you saved to repair the issue to your liking.

Good luck.

(I'd also suggest that you speak with your real estate agent and lawyer about this - after all, that's what you're paying them for!)

[backbones]

Based on the opinion of the home inspector you hired, and the way you described the leak, caulking is not going to fix this, if the problem is below the grading. It will be a temporary stop gap measure, at best. Are you willing to accept this?

If so, be prepared to pay for the cost of the proper repairs after you gain ownership of the home. I would be asking myself how much it would cost to waterproof the foundation along that one side of the house.

[s3k]

..

[CheapScotsman]

Whoops ... There is a 3rd option

c) Buy the place knowing that its got this problem to be fixed ... and negotiate a better deal with the seller. Make the repairs yourserlf after you get the house.

To get a cost estimate, phone a foundation contractor / drain tile plumbing outfit and get a quote for fixing the drain tiles and re-waterproofing one side of a basement wall. Phone a patio company and get the cost of replacing the patio. Both might give you a ballpark for over the phone

Eventually, you have to decide if the house features and price vs the "issues" make it a buy for you.

edit ... and despite my recommendation above. This is really the option that I would choose but I could do the repair myself so ...

[backbones]

You need to talk to your real estate lawyer but without the exact working of it all, it appears that you have two options

a) Allow the seller to do what he wants; take it and buy the place ... I wouldn't choose this option

b) Tell the seller that ... the inspection is NOT "satisfactory to the Buyer and, if not satisfactory to the Buyer, a report revealing deficiencies in the property which the Seller is willing and able to remedy" where the report says ... "The inspector suggested having someone cut out the cement patio a meter away from the home and having the grading looked at. ... at which time the seller will balk (due to cost) and the sale will NOT go through, you will get your deposit back.

This is the option I would choose as a buyer, however, if I was the seller, I would decline to fix it, lose the sale and sell to somebody else whose inspectors wouldn't come back with the same recommendation that yours did.

CheapScotsman is right...seller will tell you to get lost because effectively, you're asking the seller to write a blank cheque for the repairs until the problem is solved.

[s3k]

..

[backbones]

I think you guys are right. He'll most likely tell me to get lost.

I think I'll request a formal inspection (to be paid for by him) and go from there. I won't remove the condition until it's been dealt with. I'll keep everyone posted.

Yup...he'll tell you to take a hike. lol

[mirek]

This is the option I would choose as a buyer, however, if I was the seller, I would decline to fix it, lose the sale and sell to somebody else whose inspectors wouldn't come back with the same recommendation that yours did.

Isn't the seller obligated to disclose this issue now when selling ?

[backbones]

If the seller is asked, they should disclose it.

Hmmm. Buying a house is like buying a used car.

[CheapScotsman]

Isn't the seller obligated to disclose this issue now when selling ?Probably not ... its an inspectors opinion and if the home owner does the caulking job and the "issue" isn't there any more (cause it hasn't down poured and water leaked since the fix" ... no issue.

In addition ... as a home seller, what are you required to disclose? That the sump pump may not be working right? That a tile in the laundry room is cracked? That the baseboard in the living room behind the sofa has a crack in it? Not that I am saying you shouldn't disclose it is just a matter of how much are you supposed to. I don't know as I haven't sold a house in 5 years and it wasn't in Canada.

[hugh_da_man]

Probably not ... its an inspectors opinion and if the home owner does the caulking job and the "issue" isn't there any more (cause it hasn't down poured and water leaked since the fix" ... no issue.

In addition ... as a home seller, what are you required to disclose? That the sump pump may not be working right? That a tile in the laundry room is cracked? That the baseboard in the living room behind the sofa has a crack in it? Not that I am saying you shouldn't disclose it is just a matter of how much are you supposed to. I don't know as I haven't sold a house in 5 years and it wasn't in Canada.

You have to disclose any defects with the house. So you can't sell your house in summer to avoid the fact that the roof always leaks in the winter. You'd have to disclose to the buyer the fact that the roof leaks. You're usually best to disclose everything of significance because those are usually the things that someone will sue you over. A crack in a wall isn't going to lead to the buyer suing you but a constant roof leak that you don't report would probably end up in the seller getting sued for the cost.

[mirek]

You have to disclose any defects with the house. So you can't sell your house in summer to avoid the fact that the roof always leaks in the winter. You'd have to disclose to the buyer the fact that the roof leaks. You're usually best to disclose everything of significance because those are usually the things that someone will sue you over. A crack in a wall isn't going to lead to the buyer suing you but a constant roof leak that you don't report would probably end up in the seller getting sued for the cost.


That's what I mean, when I bought my condo, the previous owner had a disclosure paper that she had to sign, and it had a bunch of questions, like are you aware of any <this> or any <that> and she had to initial each one under no. Maybe it's just a BC thing?

[pintobean]

That's what I mean, when I bought my condo, the previous owner had a disclosure paper that she had to sign, and it had a bunch of questions, like are you aware of any <this> or any <that> and she had to initial each one under no. Maybe it's just a BC thing?
No it's not just a BC thing. Ontario has this document too. It's called a Seller's Property Information Statement (SPIS). If you're buying a home, it is recommended that you insist on getting one...however if you're selling a home, it is recommended that you refuse to sign one. Kinda funny really.

Here are three articles from the Toronto Star's Real Estate Law "expert" advising NOT to sign a SPIS if you're a vendor...
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2007-06-30.htm
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2007-09-08.htm
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2008-06-28.htm

[1yellowdog]

It would certainly raise a "red flag" if the seller didn't complete a SPIS.
I read the same articles Pintobean provided links to and forwarded them to my real estate agent who freaked when I suggested I wasn't going to complete one upon the sale of my home :cheesygri
Personally I would walk away from this one and find another house, why buy someone elses problems?
Surely there are more homes out there that aren't leaking.

[Hugh Jass]

Has this water caused any problems with the foundation? When was that patio laid? It's hard to know the answer to the first question without a closer inspection of the foundation, but for all you know, there could be major problems down there.

[MacGyver]

I bought a 15 year old townhome four years ago. Two years ago, we too had a torrential downpour (something like 5-1/2 inches in less than an hour) and we ended up with water coming in the basement at the front and back of the house. There was enough water at the front that it completely soaked the carpet, and we ended up replacing it.

I have never seen water in the basement before that or after, so this might be a one time thing in your case as well. Or it might not. Just some food for thought.

[Krox]

No it's not just a BC thing. Ontario has this document too. It's called a Seller's Property Information Statement (SPIS). If you're buying a home, it is recommended that you insist on getting one...however if you're selling a home, it is recommended that you refuse to sign one. Kinda funny really.

Here are three articles from the Toronto Star's Real Estate Law "expert" advising NOT to sign a SPIS if you're a vendor...
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2007-06-30.htm
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2007-09-08.htm
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2008-06-28.htm

Interesting read. I haven't sold a home yet but I know we didn't have an SPIS when we bought. I've assumed buying a home is 'as is' (unless it is a new home). That's why you get a building inspection. Although, I know you can't purposely hide things or mis-represent.

Still I had no ideas about the SPIS, but I can certainly see why a seller should be cautious about signing them.