On 9 May 2004 19:00:41 -0700, (Jon) wrote:

Mark wrote in message h.net...

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

Sorry, unless code in your jurisdiction _requires_ gutters
(which is highly unlikely), you do not have grounds to break
your contract.

Thanks for the input. You're probably right in terms of what code
requires--but from what I've been led to believe, it is not uncommon
for a home seller to agree to repair or replace his/her gutters if the
home inspector finds them to be defective. It just makes me wonder
why these people wouldn't just tear down their gutters, rather than
spend money on something that apparently holds no contractual merit...

Except there's no contractural obligation for them to agree to do
anything. You made an offer, contigent on an inspection. They agreed
to the offer, which if you or your agent did their job, should have
had a value up to which the seller would agree to make repairs as
found in an inspection. If your offer isn't contigent on your
acceptance of the inspection, they're not bound to do anything at all.
If it's contigent on your acceptance of the inspection but no value
for repairs is stated, then they still have no obligation.

Jeff