Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is case law that show judges siding with sellers in such disputes. The law gives considerable discretion to the judges to determine when a seller has not complied with side of the deal. Depending on the exact circumstances and the judges interpretation of the cases in the the OP's state being uncooperative in the face of an unanticipated problem could very well result in forfeit of the earnest money...
Agreed. The fact still remains that the OP put in an offer on this house knowing it had a 17 year old furnace/water heater. He had an inspection. He can try to play hardball or walk away, as he stated he is so upset to lose the ernest, but I really think the court would side with the seller.
Besides that, I really predict agents on both sides of the fence will be doing their all to get this deal to go through.
If it is too hot or too cold outside, that can be damaging to the unit.
Inspectors here put right into the inspection report if they are unable to test a system because of the outside temperature.
Never heard of this - how can the inspector tell if the unit works if they don't test it? Every home I've ever bought has had both heat and AC tested. My agent tells me it's a SC law that heat must work or the seller is responsible for fixing it before closing. I don't know if this info is accurate or not but I do know that I've been in many homes in the middle of summer and had inspectors test the heat.
I've also seen HVAC guys test the heat in the middle of summer and vice versa. Perhaps my climate is temperate enough to allow it. No snow or ice here - just constant humidity.
Never heard of this - how can the inspector tell if the unit works if they don't test it? Every home I've ever bought has had both heat and AC tested. My agent tells me it's a SC law that heat must work or the seller is responsible for fixing it before closing. I don't know if this info is accurate or not but I do know that I've been in many homes in the middle of summer and had inspectors test the heat.
I've also seen HVAC guys test the heat in the middle of summer and vice versa. Perhaps my climate is temperate enough to allow it. No snow or ice here - just constant humidity.
You can't run the AC unit when it gets below 50 degrees (I think that is the temperature) because it can damage the unit. Heat you can test any time.
But I don't own the house... yet. If it was known at the time of inspection, it would be a different story. I signed a contract on the premise that the furnace was working properly. Its got 4 years left in its life, supposedly. I don't see how I can be expected to pay a penny towards its future.
And like I said, I'm already paying over 15k in other repairs, it's not like I'm not putting up my own end of this.
Edited after reading the thread over.
If the owner is willing to pay for half of a new system then take it. If they are only talking about paying for half of a repair then play hard ball and decline. If nothing else they should pay for the enire repair using a technician of your choice and not theirs. That way you can make sure it is at least repaired to your satisfaction.
Last edited by escanlan; 08-13-2009 at 05:07 PM..
Reason: Re-read the thread.
Of course the contract would be important in court. My point, like yours, is to avoid the craziness of court or hostile negotiations.
If the BUYER here wants the house the contract MAY be helpful, but more importantly the spirit of getting this done should be paramount...
The Buyer may well want to get the home on ACCEPTABLE terms. The contract defines the terms that were acceptable to both parties.
I think contract knowledge is extremely important in negotiations. If you do not know what is at stake, how can you assess risks in negotiations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by escanlan
Wow, posted yesterday and already 6 pages. Well I'll add 2 cents to it without reading the whole thing and will probably echo someone else' words.
In the original post you stated that the furnace was 17 years old and the seller is willing to pay for half of a new system. In this post you state you expected only 4 more years from it. So basically the seller is agreeing to pay for 8.5 years towards a new system or 10.5 years if the life expectancy is 21 years, same as the old system. That really sounds like a very good deal to me! You're getting a new system and the seller is paying half.
Yes I understand that you have other maintenance items you agreed to but you also agreed to take on a 17 year old system and already expected to replace it within the next 4 years.
Re-read the OP.
Nowhere did the OP indicate that system replacement was on the table, only a semi-bogus repair.
It is fair to require the system to be functional at closing, IMO.
Wow, I come back from work and the thread is 6 pages long. First of all I apologize for not being clear. The seller offered initially to split the cost of a replacement, including labor.
Second, there are a lot of folks on here making interesting points, but some of these points don't seem rooted in reason. Case law is going to be state dependent. And sure, a judge can rule however they want, which is why I contacted an attorney who practices in my county, because he knows the judges and lawyers and what to expect.
It turns out I didn't need his help though. I went to the walkthrough, calmly greeted the sellers who are very nice people, and then saw the problem. The oil furnace had leaked and it was obvious upon looking at the floor around it. No inspector would have found the problem because there were no signs on the exterior of the casement. However when the seller had a professional look at it yesterday, they removed the casing to find that the cross rod that holds the back and front together had completely corroded from an internal moisture leak. No patch would last more than a week, and the seller knew that would not fly. Of course I commend them for mentioning the problem, but it was also rather obvious and difficult to hide.
I left the house and spoke with my realtor outside and instructed them to go back inside and let the seller know we would not be paying anything towards a replacement.
My reasoning is very simple. It doesn't matter that I knew the furnace was 17 years old. That is imaterial, as the contract gave us the opportunity to walk through the house and ensure that it was in the same condition as it was when the contract was signed.
Furthermore I know that had the problem showed itself even an hour after closing, the prior owners would have in no way offered to pay half of the costs. This indicates the reality here, that I don't own the house yet.
The other reality is that the situation favored me greatly. The seller had already moved out. Sure, they could fight in court over my deposit, but that would require an investment of money and time on their part as well, and given the verbage in the contract they would most assuredly have lost.
In the end, they agreed to replace the furnace fully at their cost and we agreed to postpone the closing 48 hours. They didn't put up much opposition at all, they basically agreed to do this within minutes of us having told them we couldn't contribute to the cost.
Thanks again to all for the feedback.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're getting a new system and the seller is paying half.
