有做法律方面工作的人士吗？最近遇到了房屋纠纷，请指教！

[ccc]

...。

在这种情况下，你可以从对方MISREPRESENTATION角度出发，不过你不占什么优势，因为你免去了验房条款，你的合同中也没有详细列明ROUGH IN的条款。但你可以用GRAPEVINE上对方的房屋信息，还有你的购房代理可以帮你作证。

...。

...。

楼主的CASE应该不属于LATENT DEFECT的，可能可以往MISREPRESENTATION上靠，但是具体怎么判，要看法官怎么考虑了。

专业!

 

[gettomaybe]

上面gettomaybe说的，BUYER BE AWARE是普遍适用于房屋买卖的。但是LATENT DEFECT是不一样的情况。

楼主的CASE应该不属于LATENT DEFECT的，可能可以往MISREPRESENTATION上靠，但是具体怎么判，要看法官怎么考虑了。

You are exactly on point, except buyer can argue misrepresentation AFTER proving latent defect.

If LZ is lucky, judge of the Small Claims Court may give him/ her a leeway on this point, and let the argument of misrepresentation be brought.

However, I don't think LZ can build a strong case arguing on the grounds of misrepresentation , because he would have a hard time to convince the judge that the seller "knew or ought to know" there was no rough-in. Look at the following facts:

(1) The seller is a non-professional who sold the house without a realtor, but through Grapevine; this means that the seller is not a professional who "ought to know" whether he had a rough-in in his basement;
(2) The seller's lawyer wrote to the buyer, insisting that the seller "thought" there was a rough-in, which pre-empts an attack that the seller "knew" no rough-in; and
(3) The buyer had a realtor and voluntarily waived an inspection.

 

[curiousbeaver]

my another 2 cents, but don't take my words as legal advise. it seems the other party's lawyer is pretty smart. by firmly claiming there was a rough-in they are actually putting themselves in the same position as yours. they may argue that they were told the house has a rough-in when they bought it and the burden is yours to prove that they knew there was no rough-in and they had misled the buyer in their ad., it is hard to prove they were lying and it may only leads to negligence maybe. also you need to prove there was damage caused by negligence.

 

[山清水秀]

my another 2 cents, but don't take my words as legal advise. it seems the other party's lawyer is pretty smart. by firmly claiming there was a rough-in they are actually putting themselves in the same position as yours. they may argue that they were told the house has a rough-in when they bought it and the burden is yours to prove that they knew there was no rough-in and they had misled the buyer in their ad., it is hard to prove they were lying and it may only leads to negligence maybe. also you need to prove there was damage caused by negligence.

这个可能没什么用吧. 不管卖方真不知道还是假不知道, 没有rough-in这个事实不会改变, 那卖方该承担的责任应该也不会有什么改变.

除非法官大人甚至要判他们故意欺诈, 这个理由还可以用来挡一挡, 但我觉得不到那个程度.

 

[挺傻]

You are exactly on point.

However, I don't think LZ can build a strong case arguing on the grounds of MISREPRENTATION, because he would have a hard time to convince the judge that the seller "knew or ought to know" there was no rough-in. Look at the following facts:

(1) The seller is a non-professional who sold the house without a realtor, but through Grapevine; this means that the seller is not a professional who "ought to know" whether he had a rough-in in his basement;
(2) The seller's lawyer wrote to the buyer, insisting that the seller "thought" there was a rough-in, which pre-empts an attack that the seller "knew" no rough-in; and
(3) The buyer had a realtor and voluntarily waived an inspection.

<ATOMICELEMENT id=ms__id1108><HIGHLIGHTTEXT id=ms__id1109>A misrepresentation need not be intentionally false to create liability. A statement made with conscious ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth can create liability. That means, a misrepresentation, may be made fraudulently, carelessly or innocently.
也就是说，不管出于什么原因，恶意也好，善意也好，无知也好，无辜也罢MISREPRESENTATION，就是MIS了。

但你说的对，楼主有买房代理，楼主也免去了验房条款。这些种种因素使得这个CASE不是那么CLEAR，我们也都不是法官，也许在这种情况下还有其他的适用条款。
所以如果交涉不成，楼主又想要个相对公平合理的说法，就要等法官去判了。

 

[gettomaybe]

<ATOMICELEMENT id=ms__id1108><HIGHLIGHTTEXT id=ms__id1109>A misrepresentation need not be intentionally false to create liability. A statement made with conscious ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth can create liability. That means, a misrepresentation, may be made fraudulently, carelessly or innocently.
也就是说，不管出于什么原因，恶意也好，善意也好，无知也好，无辜也罢MISREPRESENTATION，就是MIS了。

但你说的对，楼主有买房代理，楼主也免去了验房条款。这些种种因素使得这个CASE不是那么CLEAR，我们也都不是法官，也许在这种情况下还有其他的适用条款。
所以如果交涉不成，楼主又想要个相对公平合理的说法，就要等法官去判了。

To hold a vendor liable for latent defect, the buyer generally must prove "fraudulent misrepresentation", which contains an element of malicious intent. Not to mention this is not a case of latent defect. A buyer can argue misrepresentation AFTER proving latent defect.

 

[wuxl650116]

so hot

I just take a look at the picture. It has rough in, you will lose your case.

There are some differences about rough in, there are two pieces of rough in , and three pieces rough in. the first one you can only install a sink and a toilet, the second you can install sink, toilet, and a shower.
I saw at least you have a sealed tap on the white pipe, that is for the sink, the black above the basement looks like for the toilet. nothing for the third piece, your shower, you may add a few hundred dollars to break in a little in the basement to add the third to your pipe

 

[ccc]

I just take a look at the picture. It has rough in, you will lose your case.

There are some differences about rough in, there are two pieces of rough in , and three pieces rough in. the first one you can only install a sink and a toilet, the second you can install sink, toilet, and a shower.
I saw at least you have a sealed tap on the white pipe, that is for the sink, the black above the basement looks like for the toilet. nothing for the third piece, your shower, you may add a few hundred dollars to break in a little in the basement to add the third to your pipe

你搞错了。那照片不是楼主家的。

为避免误会，我删除了照片。

 

[抽油烟机专卖]

建议楼主去小额法庭吧。

看了一些回帖。真是纯忽悠而已。就这个事情就算你请个律师也花不了很多钱。

 

[ccc]

建议楼主去小额法庭吧。

看了一些回帖。真是纯忽悠而已。就这个事情就算你请个律师也花不了很多钱。

您这才是纯忽悠。您用过律师么？律师如何收费，最低一小时多少刀？

 

[20101018]

Thank you everyone. I will go to small claims court anyway, but welcome to discuss the case.


The vendor's lawyer wrote on the letter:"my client believe that a bathroom rough-in does actually exist in the basement"

 

[20101018]

刚才和上面我说的律师朋友通了电话，他说的和这里一位叫“挺傻”的朋友说的很类似。

大意就是misprepresentation from part of vendor. since I have good documentation, I might have a good chance to win in small claim court.

最好的选择就是去small claim court to get some money back.

如果哪位朋友有small claim court经验的，请不吝赐教了。

写写经验在这里，大家也都可以看看。谢谢。

 

[lovepig]

怎么没有回复呢？ 很需要有small claim court经验的朋友来指点。

 

[Jackie2009]

Found out it was a topic from last year, having read from the first post to the last

怎么没有回复呢？ 很需要有small claim court经验的朋友来指点。

What was the result?

 

[lovepig]

我也想知道结果。