I do not know, when you send your car to bodyshop and they perform
some reparings they give you full description of what has been done
right?
And if you bought my car, I am under NO obligation to show you those
papers. I can if I want, and you are free not to agree to buy i I
don't. And unless I falsely say there was never any work, I am not
obligated to tell you that there was. And if you agree to buy without
me saying, then you cannot later add a requirement that I prove
anything. And the body shop peperwork states so many labor hours and
which parts, it would not say how or why the damage occured in the
first place. You have already found out the house was rebuilt. What
more would the paperwork prove but what you already know.

The laws about whether there is an affirmative duty to disclose a
DEFECT in a house vary widely by state. But I wouldn't think they
apply here anyway, since being rebuilt is not a "defect".

BTW, have you ASKED the owner why it was rebuilt (was he even the one
who rebuilt it) and what did he say?


Why the same situation with the house should be any different?

Because it is a house which is real estate and not a car which is a
motor vehicle? Why should that make a difference? Well, *why* do you
get a license plate and a "pink slip" for your car and not your house,
why is a house "deed" "recorded" at the Registry of Deeds and the car
"title" "registered" at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, why are they
taxed differently, why are the warrantees different, one is built in a
factory and shipped to a dealer and is personal property, one is built
or assembled onsite and is real property etc etc A HOUSE IS NOT A CAR.

There could be a fire, they painted foundation and i do not see
affected parts of it. How's that?

Prove there was a fire. And what if there was? Why is that a
problem? What Effect did the fire have on the foundation? Assume ALL
of the foundation was "Effected". In what way was it Effected?
Suppose it was not painted, what would you see that was bad, that
could be covered up with just paint? Prove the bad effect.


2. If there is no document proving the rebuilt, there could be a case
when the house was not rebuilt entirely but say remodelled.

Right. And so he has a "document" that PROVES he paid $X to have it
rebuilt -or- remodeled. So what? Thatr only proves what you already
know, that it was rebuilt (or remodelled). So what? And what if it
WAS remodelled. So what. Wait a minute, isn't that BETTER from your
point of view, since you are worried what was so bad that it had to be
rebuilt? So what is wrong if it was "only" remodelled? Houses
(UNlike cars) do NOT sell by model year, they sell by CONDITION.
Which is determined by the buyer looking at it. So you looked at it.
What is wrong with it?

Suppose he has no document proving it was remodelled or rebuilt - then
what does that mean? That it was not? Which is what you want!


Again non of this was disclosed why should I beleive on his words?
Djavdet.

Because you are LOOKING at the house. Do you like what you see or
not? Then what does it matter.

I think you had better not buy this house. Let someone else buy it
who will appreciate it. You would be better off with a different
house. This is only a problem for you.

-v.