Buyer Beware.....its up to you to "beware, inspect and question"!

[Greg Subick]

Here is a great article!

Legal Case Summary: Court Finds for "Reprehensible" Sellers | realtor.org (http://www.realtor.org/legal-case-summaries/court-finds-for-reprehensible-sellers?om_rid=AAMCQh&om_mid=_BSxdNZB83bwEKb&om_ntype=NARWeekly)

[Mike Lamb]

It is a good article and something for all to learn from.

"Reprehensible," does not equal liable. And the law does not always equal justice. From what I read, the Douglas’ dropped the ball when their inspection report found rot and they never pursued the extent of it.

Bolds are my own.

The appellate court reversed on all counts, stating in its opinion that while “the Visser’s efforts in concealing the defects of the house they were selling are reprehensible, even more so because Visser is a licensed real estate agent…the law retains a duty on a buyer to beware, to inspect, and to question.”

“When prospective homebuyers discover evidence of a defect, the buyers must beware. They are on notice of the defect and have a duty to make further inquiries.” Id, at 800-801. Later, at 803, “When a buyer is on notice of a defect, it must make further inquiries of the seller.” At 804,

"The Douglases and their inspector were on notice of the defect and had a duty to
make further inquiries. The Douglases argue that "they had no idea that 50 to
70% of the sill plate and rim joist were destroyed" and that the area of rot [their
inspector] discovered was not unusual. That, however, is the precise argument
we rejected in Dalarna. Once a buyer discovers evidence of a defect, they are
on notice and have a duty to make further inquiries. They cannot succeed when
the extent of the defect is greater than anticipated, even when it is magnitudes
greater. "

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/680676.pdf