On 11 Feb 2004 00:46:20 -0800, someone wrote:

As far as I know seller has to disclose certain information about the
house.
I am not sure though whether it is a law or not.

Well, if you are saying he is doing something illegal, you'd better
know what that law is that you say he is breaking. But in the end
what does it matter. Suppose he broke the law, are you going to try
to balckmail him with it, or do you still want the house? WHAT DO YOU
ACTUALLY WANT????



The fact is, the house was listed as 20 yo but appeared as 65 yo.
and there is no proving paper saying that it is 20 yo.

There is no paper saying it is 65 either. Again, WHAT DO YOU WANT.
If you even *think* it is a 65 y.o. house and you instead want a 20
y.o. house, you should not buy it no matter what any paper says.
Suppose he *refuses* to "prove" it is 20 y.o., what will you do
then???? WHAT DO YOU WANT???


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

Here is another problem we communicate through agents it slows down
everything. No i did not ask him that question, i am waiting for
appraisal and builing permit.

Then you are an idiot, if this is your big question that controls
whether you want the house or not, yet you have not even asked, even
through agents? Why are you speculating out here, until you find out
what he says? How can you say he is lying if he has not even been
asked the question yet?


I think it's bs. no matter how you call the product if you sell it you
have to advertise it correctly or get it back. you can not advertise
one quality and sell different.

So do you want the house or not, WHAT DO YOU WANT, *KNOWING* what you
know?


Well, i think it's quite easy to prove there was fire. Should be in
records somewhere.

Then prove there was. Do you want the Seller to prove there WAS or
WAS NOT a fire? WHich do you want?


disclose such an information, why many builders list houses and always
say that the house was rebuilt in year 2003 and because of fire?
According to you they do not have to do it, so should not they get
more money though?

Your English has slipped so badly I do not know what you mean. I
don't hold bad English against you entirely, in that if I tried to
post in Hindu or Farsi then I wouldn't do any better, but then I am
not buying a house in India or Iran.... There is not a specific price
one gets for a 2003 house or for a 1968 house, it is by condition, you
inspect the house for yourself and offer what you think it is worth to
you, there is no list of prices.


We wanted to buy the house because we did not see anything wrong with
it, it does not mean the house's ok. When you see AIDS infected person
You probably won't notice anything wrong ....

You would know if you got that person tested. This is a house. What
would you like it tested for? Apparently it looks just like a 20 y.o.
house. What hidden things do you think it has, and test for those.
It is a house not a person or a car. How long do houses stand where
you are from (which is apparently not here from your English). Why
would you not buy a house with a 64 y.o. foundation if it is
indistinguishable from a 20 y.o. house.

But never mind all that, you have become tiresome & boring, I will ask
yet again WHAT DO YOU WANT? Do you want it proved that there was, or
was not, a fire? What would you do differently if it was one answer
or the other?

Do you want it proved that it was or was not rebuilt? What would you
do differently one way or the other?

That it was or was not remodelled? What would you do differently one
way or the other?

Suppose the Seller did break the law, so what, you have discovered his
lie, you did not rely upon it, now that you know the truth, what will
you do? What is the worst truth there could be? Which is worse, was
or was not remodelled, was or was not rebuilt, was or was not a fire?
Suppose all is the worst, what will you do? WHAT DO YOU WANT?

-v.