Age to recommend replacing

[dan orourke]

...........

[Gunnar Alquist]

Dan,

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) compiled a list of component life expectancy. While not necessarily gospel, it is useful, particularly if someone questions a report comment.

I downloaded a pdf some months ago and email it to people that have questions. I think the download site is:

http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentID=72475

If not, search for NAHB component life expectancy

[John Arnold]

At what age for water heaters and HVAC systems do you just recommend replacing them? Even if they are functioning fine, peripheral defects are minor. I was thinking at the 10 year mark?
In PA, by state law, we can't call something a "material defect" only because it is beyond its normal useful life. That doesn't mean we can't "recommend" replacing, though.

[Jon Randolph]

I don't recommend replacing unless conditions of the component indicate that replacement is needed, but I do notify the client with the following statements.

I use the following statement for a water heater over 5 years of age:

• Deferred Cost: Any water heater over 5 years old is listed as a deferred cost item. These units may last for 15-20 years or more, but have a typical life expectancy of 7-12 years. One cannot predict with certainty when replacement will become necessary.


I use this statement for a water heater over 10 years of age:

• Deferred Cost: The water heater is an old unit that may be approaching the end of its useful life. These units may last for 15-20 years or more, but have a typical life expectancy of 7-12 years. It would be wise to budget for a new unit. One cannot predict with certainty when replacement will become necessary.

[Joseph P. Hagarty]

In PA, by state law, we can't call something a "material defect" only because it is beyond its normal useful life. That doesn't mean we can't "recommend" replacing, though.

I have noted many things as Deficient, Defective, Improperly Installed, Hazardous, etc....

I do not recall ever using the term "Material Defect".

[Michael Larson]

[quote=Joseph P. Hagarty;23642I do not recall ever using the term "Material Defect".[/quote]It's a defined term in Wisconsin

A Material defect is a problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property.

[John Arnold]

It's a defined term in Wisconsin

A Material defect is a problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property.
The PA home inspection law says the same thing. It says the purpose of the home inspection is to find "material defects" and then defines them as above.

[Jerry Peck]

A Material defect is a problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property.

1) That means you *do not* report defects which are not "material defects"?

2) That also means that a shingle roof which is 50 years old (beyond its normal expected life) *IS* a "material defect" as it certainly would have a "significant adverse impact on the value" of the property.

[John Arnold]

1) That means you *do not* report defects which are not "material defects"?

Jerry - As far as I know it does mean we don't have to report anything that isn't a "material defect", although no one I know limits the inspection that way. Of course, the law also says we have to belong to one of the national organizations, and therefore comply with our SoP.

[Michael Larson]

1) That means you *do not* report defects which are not "material defects"?Where did you get that idea? Not from me Jerry.


2) That also means that a shingle roof which is 50 years old (beyond its normal expected life) *IS* a "material defect" as it certainly would have a "significant adverse impact on the value" of the property.Agreed


from WI Disclosure form (http://www.fsbomadison.com/wisconsin_real_estate_forms/recondtn.pdf)

OWNER’S INFORMATION

B.1. In this form, “am aware” means to have notice or knowledge. In this form, “defect” means a condition that would have a significant
adverse effect on the value of the property; that would significantly impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property; or that if
not repaired, removed or replaced would significantly shorten or adversely affect the expected normal life of the premises.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Owners and agents dislike the term "defect" unless it meets the requirements above.

Some items in a report might be considered by many to be "minor defects" but that term is not defined. So it's better to refer to these items by other terms such as deferred maintenance or needs attention or substandard installation and other designations.

Ain't regulation wonderful?

[Jerry Peck]

from WI Disclosure form (http://www.fsbomadison.com/wisconsin_real_estate_forms/recondtn.pdf)

OWNER’S INFORMATION

B.1. In this form, “am aware” means to have notice or knowledge. In this form, “defect” means a condition that would have a significant adverse effect on the value of the property; that would significantly impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property; or that if not repaired, removed or replaced would significantly shorten or adversely affect the expected normal life of the premises.

Do you have a definition for "significant"?

That seems to be the real word this hinges and revolves around.

It there is no definition, then it is up to the home inspection to apply their definition of "significant" to their report, making many more things "defects" should the home inspector desire to use that word.

[Michael Larson]

Do you have a definition for "significant"?

That seems to be the real word this hinges and revolves around.

It there is no definition, then it is up to the home inspection to apply their definition of "significant" to their report, making many more things "defects" should the home inspector desire to use that word.
That's a fair question Jerry. I wish there was a simple answer. Maybe this will help. Ultimately it's the responsibility of the seller to disclose defects and if necessary to amend his disclosure statement in light of any newly revealed information(ie. from a HI report). It's up to the buyer to accept the property as is or under the terms specified in an amended purchase agreement.

Defect Disclosure

Q. When a seller has home pre-inspected and inspection comes up with two defects and then a list of “repair items,” do the repair items have to be disclosed to potential buyers?

A. The seller’s disclosure responsibilities on the Real Estate Condition Report (RECR) are to disclose defects, defined as conditions “that would have a significant adverse effect on the value of the property; that would significantly impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property; or that if not repaired, removed or replaced would significantly shorten or adversely affect the expected normal life of the premises.” If the seller has an inspection report that discloses two defects, the seller should complete an amended RECR or an amendment to the RECR that discloses the defects (and any measures taken to rectify the same). If the items listed on the inspection report as repairs do not fit the definition of a defect, then they need not be disclosed. Although the seller may provide copies of the inspection report to buyers or share the repair items with buyers, this is not required.
The ultimate goal is to have any defects disclosed to buyers. If a seller fails to disclose a defect, the licensee must timely disclose it to the parties in writing if it constitutes a material adverse fact.

[Jerry Peck]

Michael,

If you read that (what you posted) you will see why I am 'harping on' the use of the word "defect".

Simply put, *IF YOU* (the HI, not 'you' in particular) do not use the term "defect', then, technically and legally (based on what you posted), the sellers *do not have to* address them or disclose them.

You can call them 'repair items' or anything other than "defect" and you are not helping your client to their *best* interest.

"If it ain't noah good no mo' ", just say so, call it "defective", i.e., it is a "defect".

"Significant" is up to you guys and gals who inspect there.

If you think a broken face plate is "significant", so be it - write it up as a 'defect'.

[Michael Larson]

...If you read that (what you posted) you will see why I am 'harping on' the use of the word "defect".I perceive no harping Jerry, just a great discussion that fleshes out the issue at hand. Thanks


Simply put, *IF YOU* (the HI, not 'you' in particular) do not use the term "defect', then, technically and legally (based on what you posted), the sellers *do not have to* address them or disclose them. The seller is liable to list known material defects and the HI is required to report "material defects", No?

If that's not happening the seller is lying and the HI is writing soft reports and doing a great disservice to his client.


You can call them 'repair items' or anything other than "defect" and you are not helping your client to their *best* interest.Agreed and the HI would be in violation of the state SOP. I think there is may be some misunderstanding of what to call a "defect".

For example: a scratched counter top may or may not have a significant adverse effect on the value of the property. It's a judgment call based on the whole picture, wouldn't you agree?

Same for a leaky faucet, dirty furnace filter, clogged gutters, and a host of others.


"If it ain't noah good no mo' ", just say so, call it "defective", i.e., it is a "defect".I call out defects as such when in my judgment they have a significant effect on the value of the property or present a hazard to occupants.


"Significant" is up to you guys and gals who inspect there.

If you think a broken face plate is "significant", so be it - write it up as a 'defect'.Yep. A broken face plate is safety hazard at certainly should be reported as a defect.

[Jerry Peck]

The seller is liable to list known material defects and the HI is required to report "material defects", No?

Yes. But not 'items needing repair' or 'deferred maintenance' or 'needs attention' or 'substandard installation' or other designations.

Don't be afraid to call them "defects" - *THAT* is the point I am trying to make.

If "defects" must be disclosed, call them "defects", don't fancy pancy around trying to call them something else.


If that's not happening the seller is lying and the HI is writing soft reports and doing a great disservice to his client.

I agree. So ... are you calling them "defects" or using other terms as you stated above?


I think there is may be some misunderstanding of what to call a "defect".

I don't think there is a misunderstanding about what to call out, just "how" to call it out ... using, or not using, the "defect" word.


I call out defects as such when in my judgment they have a significant effect on the value of the property or present a hazard to occupants.

According to your post above, you do not call out "defects", you call them out as: "So it's better to refer to these items by other terms such as deferred maintenance or needs attention or substandard installation and other designations."

They are either "defects" or they are not. According to your information, if you call them something else, your client may not be able to make the best use of your report for their best interests.

[Jim Luttrall]

It sounds like the law in your state(s) mentioned is written by and for the benefit of the realtors, not the public.
When the fox is guarding the hen house, make no mistake, there will be fat foxes at the expense of the chickens. It is our job (IMHO) to level the playing field by providing a clear dose of reality. Call it out loud and clear so NOONE can mistake what you said. Anything less is a dis-service to your clients.

[Michael Larson]

It sounds like the law in your state(s) mentioned is written by and for the benefit of the realtors, not the public. Isn't that true of most if not all HI regulation?

Jerry,

You have ignored much of my rationale for not calling everything a "defect"

Do you call out cosmetic issues as defects?

Do you call out items needing maintenance "defects"?

Do you call out items that ned adjustment or simple repair "defects"?

Happy reporting in any case.

It does appear you do not like be challenged at times but so be it.:)

I don't sugar coat my reports and I don't cause unnecessary alarm either if it can be avoided.

[Jerry Peck]

You have ignored much of my rationale for not calling everything a "defect"

Do you call out cosmetic issues as defects?

That's a simple question - *I* did not look at "cosmetic items", do you? If so, why? If not, why say anything about them?

Thus, the answer is "cosmetic items" = not even mentioned (thus not a "defect")


Do you call out items needing maintenance "defects"?

Define "maintenance".

If it is *not right*, it is *wrong*, and if it is *wrong* it is a defect - regardless *of why* it is *not right*. I do not see items needing "maintenance", I see items needing "repair". For "repair", see below.


Do you call out items that ned adjustment or simple repair "defects"?

Yes, because if it needs "repair" then it is *not right* and if it is *not right* then it is *wrong* and if it is *wrong* it is a defect.

I see little value in "repairing" something which is *right* - kind of defeats the purpose of "repair", doesn't it?


It does appear you do not like be challenged at times but so be it.

I like being challenged, that's what makes one think, the more one thinks, the better one becomes. Some challenges, though, are not well thought out.


I don't sugar coat my reports and I don't cause unnecessary alarm either if it can be avoided.

There is a difference between "alarm" and "defect", a "defect" is anything which is "not right" while an "alarm" is advising them that the water heater is filling the house with CO because there is not vent/flue attached - it is a "defect" *AND* it is in need of "alarm".

Calling something a "defect" does not mean you are "alarming" or 'scaring' your client. However, *not* calling something a "defect" when it is "defective" (i.e., "not right") *CAN* harm your client.

[Michael Larson]

Jerry, it's obvious we see this issue differently. That's OK with me.

The Wisconsin disclosure law requires sellers to disclose known defects that significantly affect the value of the property and amend their disclosure if needed.
IMHO not all items that you want to call "defects" fall into this category. They still get reported on. I

f you consider a $5 dollar fix a defect go for it.

It doesn't significantly affect the value of the home and that is why I do not report it as a defect. Is that clear?

You seem to be saying that I have not thought this out. Please explain.

BTW-We'll see what the Florida HI law(if it ever gets completed) does with this issue. Good luck.

[Jerry Peck]

(bold in quote below is mine)

The Wisconsin disclosure law requires sellers to disclose known defects

IMHO not all items that you want to call "defects" fall into this category.

It doesn't significantly affect the value of the home and that is why I do not report it as a defect.

You seem to be saying that I have not thought this out. Please explain.

"Please explain."

I've been trying to.

[Michael Larson]

(bold in quote below is mine)


"Please explain."

I've been trying to.

Try harder Jerry.:D


If you consider a $5 dollar fix a defect go for it.
It doesn't significantly affect the value of the home and that is why I do not report it as a defect. Is that clear?

Is this or is this not a significant "defect" under Wisconsin law?

If you say yes then the dollar value you categorize as significant is much lower than most.:confused:

If you say no, then we would be appear to be in general agreement.:)


Has FL decided what must be reported by an HI yet?

Is a sellers disclosure statement required in FL?

[Michael Larson]

Michael,

You are saying:

maintenance = cosemetic = no repair.

you are setting yourself for failure , payout with this approach with all due respect.

Jerry is saying:

maintenance = repair.
cosmentic = not inspected.

That is the right way to go.

Back to origional post:

if a system is 12 years old or greater, I the best recommendation to recommend replacing. Non of this "budgeting" nonsense.Robert, Thanks for trying.
Cosmetic was a poor choice on my part and probably confused the issue.
All please accept my apology.

I report all found maintenance and repair issues along with material defects.

Everyone keeps ignoring my examples of simple and inexpensive repair or maintenance items.

Would someone here be willing to provide an explanation as to why simple repairs or maintenance items should be called out as "defects" when they do not materially affect the value of the property?

Of course they are defects in common parlance they just don't rise to the level of significant under WI law.

[Michael Larson]

This is the problem with using "significant" , major, minor, moderate...subjective unless you define it in your report or the state does in the SOP.....You got that exactly write. :)

BTW-I do define those terms in my report.:p

Why do some HIs think regulation can be accomplished without this very type of thing happening?

[Rick Cantrell]

To me "Significant defect" is more about the consequences than the cost of repair. If by cost, then what is the cost, $100 $500 $1000, and who decides?
A missing wall receptacle cover cost 50 cents, but think of what can happen if that missing cover is in the child's room. How significant will the parents think it is if their child is shocked?

How about a window painted shut, no EERO.
Screen on gable vent is torn, access for squirrels and bats.

[Michael Larson]

To me "Significant defect" is more about the consequences than the cost of repair. If by cost, then what is the cost, $100 $500 $1000, and who decides? Yes it can be. You're right it's somewhat subjective. We all have different :significant" levels. Isn't regulation wonderful?


A missing wall receptacle cover cost 50 cents, but think of what can happen if that missing cover is in the child's room. How significant will the parents think it is if their child is shocked?That is defect because it is a safety issue which is included in the definitions.


How about a window painted shut, no EERO.
Screen on gable vent is torn, access for squirrels and bats.Lack of egress is a safety issue. Torn screen is a repair item IMO. The consequences of not fixing could become a material defect.

[Jerry Peck]

Torn screen is a repair item ...

Okay, I'll try harder this time: Is the above a "defect"?

Yes or No.

[Michael Larson]

Okay, I'll try harder this time: Is the above a "defect"?

Yes or No.

Hmmm? Does it significantly affect the value of the property?

[Jerry Peck]

Try harder Jerry.


Torn screen is a repair item ...


Okay, I'll try harder this time: Is the above a "defect"?

Yes or No.


Hmmm? Does it significantly affect the value of the property?

I guess you do not understand what "Yes or No." is either?

Anyone have any ideas on how I can make that any simpler for Michael to understand?

[Scott Patterson]

Why even use the word "Defect"? Just say the gable vent screen is torn and needs to be replaced. Then if you want to add "The screen keeps critters from entering the attic." , that would be fine. Keep it simple.

IMO, a defect is associated with the failure of an item or product. Defect also IMO, suggest that it is associated with the manufacturer of the item or product.

IMO, we need to state what we see. It is either OK or it is Broken or needs repair. If it is Old, then report it is old and that it needs replacing. If home inspectors did this and stopped reporting in terms that are passive, then we would have less inspectors getting into trouble.

Just my opinion on a few things! :D

[Jerry Peck]

Why even use the word "Defect"?

Scott,

The information Michael posted stated that the sellers only had to disclose and address "defects".

Without identifying it as a "defect", the seller does not need to address it, meaning the client gets nothing for it, and if the home inspectors report does not address "defects" ... why pay to have the home inspected.

[Scott Patterson]

Scott,

The information Michael posted stated that the sellers only had to disclose and address "defects".

Without identifying it as a "defect", the seller does not need to address it, meaning the client gets nothing for it, and if the home inspectors report does not address "defects" ... why pay to have the home inspected.

Unha, now I see.

[Michael Larson]

Unha, now I see.I'll try again. Trust me it's in my.posts.

The seller is required to fill out a disclosure form in WI.

The disclosure form must contain know defects that significantly affect the value of the house. (think leaking roof for an example or basement floods during heavy rain.

The seller is required to amend his disclosure if other issues come to light by whatever means. The idea is complete disclosure by the seller to the buyer.(does it always happen, NO)

The buyer can renegotiate as he deems appropriate in accordance with his offer to purchase which hopefully contains an inspection contingency.

Now what's the problem?

Is your concern that the buyer will be unable to renegotiate the price is the HI doesn't report at least one "defect"?

BTW Jerry, I have asked you several direct questions that you seem unwilling to answer.:confused:

[Jerry Peck]

BTW Jerry, I have asked you several direct questions that you seem unwilling to answer.

And you have yet to answer my simple 'Yes or No.' question.

[Michael Larson]

And you have yet to answer my simple 'Yes or No.' question.I'd be happy to as soon as you answer the questions I asked.
Shall I list them?:)

[Jerry Peck]

Michael,

First, on one thread you accuse someone of mis-representing the facts, yet you refuse to state the facts which would support your statement.

Now, on another thread, you try to use the old ruse and refuse to answer simple questions until your utter nonsense questions are answered.

It is obvious that your only intent is to 'cause problems' and try to sucker someone into an argument which will degrade to the point at which you can then go to Brian and say 'Lookee what so-and-so said about me'.

I'm not that stupid. And if you think I am, that says a lot about you.

It is painfully obvious to us all that you are not really trying to contribute anything to this board. That your only intention is to 'cause problems'.

[Michael Larson]

It is painfully obvious to us all that you are not really trying to contribute anything to this board. That your only intention is to 'cause problems'.I have no interest in telling Brian anything about anybody. I thought we were having a lively discussion to flesh out the issue. I am sorry if I have violated the apparent unwritten rule that apparently goes something like.

No one shall disagree with Scott or Jerry and expect to get a way with it.

I have tried to be helpful on this board and I certainly find your posts helpful, even the ones on this thread. Read my posts and see if that is the case.

My questions were not meant to anger or provoke you and there is no ruse.

Lewis and I use to go around on another board and to see him spew here is disappointing. That's all I intend to say at this time.

If you want to play the bully card. Have fun. It won't work with me.

[Bob White]

I can't believe I read this entire thread.

I cudda been picking my nose or doing something else more productive....

[Michael Larson]

I can't believe I read this entire thread.

I cudda been picking my nose or doing something else more productive....Bob, Sorry for my part in what has become a **ssing match. It's tough to have a discussion when the interaction stops. Hope you have found better things to do than listen to Jerry and I go at it.:)

P.S. I had Internet connection trouble and am on a back up system. I hope Jerry comes back to finish the discussion. He may not believe it but my thoughts are this subject are even clearer now that when this started and for that I want to thank Jerry for making me think through the issue of "material defect". We may still disagree but I truly wish him well and hope we can continue the discussion. I for my part will try to be a bit less combative to move the discussion forward. I'll check back in later today and see how it goes.:)

[Scott Patterson]

I have no interest in telling Brian anything about anybody. I thought we were having a lively discussion to flesh out the issue. I am sorry if I have violated the apparent unwritten rule that apparently goes something like.

No one shall disagree with Scott or Jerry and expect to get a way with it.


It was a fairly good discussion, and a couple opinions were offered. The majority of the opinions said to do away with the rating of the defects and just report what you see. It is working or it needs repair or replacement.

Anyone can disagree with me. All I can offer is my 12+ years of experience in this profession, you can take it of leave it. It makes no difference to me.

[Michael Larson]

Hey Scott, thanks for your opinion. I've been gone all day. And I agree, on balance it has been a good discussion.:)

The problem (and others have noted it) is the lack of clearly defined terms in the regulations that govern sellers diclosures and HI responsibilities.
I agree with Jerry when he says " "If it ain't noah good no mo' ", just say so"

I didn't mean this to turn into a discussion of regulation but that's what it has become.

As each state considers HI regulation, HIs need to thoughtfully consider if this helps or hurts them. The track record of HI regulation would seems to indicate that it is not a desirable condition.

Some HIs support regulation and are convinced it necessary ans useful but once the beast is out of its cage who is able to control it?
Perhaps we will all face standardized reporting as Texas now has. I hope not.

As HI laws go, Wisconsin's current regulation doesn't seem to egregious but what will it be in the future? You tell me.

[Dave Mortensen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
Why even use the word "Defect"?
Scott,

The information Michael posted stated that the sellers only had to disclose and address "defects".

Without identifying it as a "defect", the seller does not need to address it, meaning the client gets nothing for it, and if the home inspectors report does not address "defects" ... why pay to have the home inspected.


Regardless of how the problem is designated, ie. "defect", "repair item", etc, the seller needs to address items in a home inspection report when the buyer (or mortgage lender or appraiser) asks them too. I put three categories on a home inspection summary, "Health and Safety", then "Repair Items" and lastly "Maintenance Items". Sometimes a buyer wants the "gutters installed" which is listed under maintenance items and fails to ask for a combustion air vent into the garage for example (listed under Health and Safety). Usually the appraiser asks for the combustion air vent anyways, but my point is, the buyer, with help from their realtor, usually makes these decisions. Why does not designating something a "defect" mean the seller is not going to adress it? If they want to sell the house to this party they sure will... David

[Billy Stephens]

fails to ask for a combustion air vent into the garage for example (listed under Health and Safety).

Usually the appraiser asks for the combustion air vent anyways, David


David,

Would you mind explaining(Combustion Air Vent into the Garage?)

[Dave Mortensen]

We had a family of 5 perish due to their furnace exhaust backdrafting into their home, the fire department ruled the lack of combustion air into the furnace room as the cause. Now the local gas company requires combustion air vents (typically 6" to 8" galvanized venting) installed in all garages, furnace rooms, etc. The municipality requires carbon monoxide detectors on each floor of a home whenever it is sold.
HO don't like them because when it's 10 below their garage can get mighty cold, but it probably saves lives every year. Home inspectors up here write the lack of a combustion air vent a "Life Safety" issue. Hope that answers your question, David

[Scott Patterson]

I have worked under a home inspection license since 2001 and I'm licensed in three states as a home inspector. I see licensing as my friend as it defines my job and what I need and need not do. I might not agree with everything in the license laws, but I have learned to live and work with under them.

Now as for the State required Sellers Disclosure Statements or forms, the majority of the states require them. The three states that I work in require them as well, they also say "Known Defects". The disclosure form has nothing to do with my inspection. I don't even look at them as they are about as useful as teats on a boar hog.

The language on the form should not and does not have any bearing on what or how I write my reports. If it is not working properly, broken, installed wrong, or whatever, this is pretty much how I report it. How this is interrupted as far as the definition of a "defect" is up to my client, I don't get involved in the semantics of the sales contract.

[Michael Larson]

I have worked under a home inspection license since 2001 and I'm licensed in three states as a home inspector. I see licensing as my friend as it defines my job and what I need and need not do. I might not agree with everything in the license laws, but I have learned to live and work with under them.I glad it's working out well for you. Let's hope that the license laws you have to work under stay the way they are now. We have no choice but to work under the rules that someone else has decided for us. I don't trust politicians or other interested parties to leave these laws alone and history in several states proves the point.
Personally I would rather define the scope of my HI via my PIA without the state's interference.


Now as for the State required Sellers Disclosure Statements or forms, the majority of the states require them. The three states that I work in require them as well, they also say "Known Defects". The disclosure form has nothing to do with my inspection. I don't even look at them as they are about as useful as teats on a boar hog.I agree its has little to nothing with an inspection. Do the aforementioned states require the seller to amend if problems are found?


The language on the form should not and does not have any bearing on what or how I write my reports. If it is not working properly, broken, installed wrong, or whatever, this is pretty much how I report it. How this is interrupted as far as the definition of a "defect" is up to my client, I don't get involved in the semantics of the sales contract.I think that's great advice Scott. Let the buyer determine how important each issue is and how it affects his decision to buy the home.

[Scott Patterson]

I agree its has little to nothing with an inspection. Do the aforementioned states require the seller to amend if problems are found?


That I do not know. But I do know this; if items are found that are not listed on the form the buyer has the option to walk away from the sale without any penalty.

I would assume that in order to make the sales contract valid that the disclosure statement would be amended or a new one drawn up to reflect any new items.