Issue with Property after purchase

I am in an old building, 1 year after buying, we discovered fire safety is not done as well as well as termites.

The contract says buyer cannot chase after seller for compensation.


Going forward, I was thinking of amending the contract to "if anything is discovered within 3 years, of a problem that originated prior to the 3 years, then buyer can chase after compensation."


My question is,

Has anyone seen this type of term before? I want to know if it is outrageous or reasonable.

 

Why would a seller agree to that amendment?

 

Did you get a building inspection done before you bought it?

 

It seems reasonable until you realise that if anything at all goes wrong with the property within 3 years, the seller might be liable. There's almost no chance that any vendor would accept such a term.

It would also be nearly impossible to enforce and many vendors wouldn't be able to compensate for the damage years after the fact (they've probably spend the money the day after your settlement).

Perhaps next time to proper building and pest inspections so you know what you're buying upfront.

 

I understand they most likely wont.
Especially in a market where more buyers than sellers.
Maybe could have a chance if its buyer market? I am not sure.
I am just wondering people on this forum ever seen terms like this.

 

No I didn't. I have accepted it is my fault.
I am new to the process and no parents to guide. Not an excuse, just feel bad about the situation.
So, are building inspections extremely common? Like would you(or others on forum) undoubted get building inspector for old buildings? before the auction? during cooling?
What if building inspector missed it? are they liable?
So what happen was, one year after I bought it, the neighbor (a builder) who has owned his unit for 2 years, wanted to renovate and discovered fire upgrade and termite issue.
The builder has family member whom after some strata meetings I believe is a keen and skillful litigator, and even they have not sort compensation, prompts me to think they have also missed the building inspection step as well as thinking there is no recourse.

 

thank you for your reply. Appreciate it.
Useful to know an opinion that there is little chance vendor would accept.
I was naive to think, "if you have nothing to hide, then why not agree to the term? unless you think your building has some serious issues you are hiding? or you didn;t do pest inpection checks for 5 years?"

 

Building and pest inspections are quite common. My position is that if the vendor refuses these requests, then ask yourself what don't they want you to know about?

It's a bit late now, but I'd never buy a property with evidence that termites are in the building (they're almost always in the backyard btw).

 

Caveat Emptor is the latin (Roman) expression for "Buyer Beware". Most property contracts have this as a foundation and common law adopts that view too and contracts generally have default terms which say as much. General consumer law doesnt apply to real estate and other states laws prevail. This imposes the obligation on a buyer to ascertain any defects or issues prior to making a contract. You should also never use the vendors information as you have no legal recourse against them or their provider. The correct position is you dont accept a single thing a vendor, agent etc says about a property. The contract generally contains clauses which disclaim and exclude all representations made outside the contract terms. There are minor exceptions eg Real estate says its a 4 bed unit but its 3 bed + study with the study not being habitable as a bedroom.

There are exceptions for new buliding warranties etc but these can also be statutory or limited (very limited).

Auction terms require the bidder do this prior to bidding. Once the hammer falls its your problem.

Did you get legal advice before signing or bidding ? A solicitor would have likely recommend a pest & building inspection to ensure you were all knowing prior to making a contract. If its strate they may have also recommended a strata review and report to determine the extent of planned maintenance and the extent of the levy funds. The fire and termite issue may be a strata issue requiring all owners to fund the defects.

 

Am I the only one really confused?
Are you trying to amend a contract after the sale has been completed? Why would anyone ever accept that?

 

If I received a request like that I wouldnt even reply

 

Title Insurance?

 

I would. I'd reply with this. No text just the picture.

Not a title related issue...

 

Ignorance and naïveté will be steamrolled in real life. Sorry but you need to learn how this works.

every purchase should be made with a building and pest inspection and the buyer should have a long conversation with the inspector to go through the report. Attending the inspection is even better.

 

This requires the vendor to potentially be responsible for stuff they dont know about. Eg after the storms last year a lot of roofs leaked. Doesnt mean there was anything wrong with it, just storm damage. This clause might open the previous owner to liability if the buyer tried to argue there was damage before. There would be arguments and legal costs about what was damage before and after purchase.

Who wants the aggravation?

any decent lawyer or marginally intelligent owner would reject this. Unless its a horrible market for sellers. In which case I suggest lowballing and spend some of the money you save on a proper inspection.

 

naive in the sense that you dont understand how wide the liability for this clause would be if the vendor (insanely) agreed to it.

 

I have a client who has a relative who purchased a termite ridden property. The building and pest failed to detect the issue. It was VERY apparent there was negligence as the external signs of defects were obvious let alone opening the manhole to find roof timbers like dust. The main report company had insurance. But they sub-contracted a guy to report who did not which compicanted things a little. Took several months but now its with assessing to determine if its repairable. Best estimates indicate it would cost more to repair than demo so they are doing a full costs assessing to determine the loss to be paid. Now they are working on a claim valued between $320-$390K. The inspection fee was $695. So far legals of $10K+ but the insurer is not fighting it so that costs may not expand and will also be met by the insurer.

Apparently report providers dont NEED to be insured (NSW) but best they are. It avoids a civil claim and very costly legals. In this case their insurer accepted the claim quite quickly and were satisfied it was professional negligence. But an insurer could also defend a claim.

Tip - Make sure your pest & building inspection company has PI cover before you engage them. Dont fall for "we are insured". They may mean workers comp.

 

no I am not trying to amend what has already happened.
try to find out going forward, should I ask for amendment.
and it is common practice to do so

 

yes I understand the liability is very wide.
based on some of the replies, it would seem generally seller has general advantage. Maybe? Just wondering.

As a seller they could say, "I am not going to agree to your new terms, and you don't have to buy it."
so the first buyer goes away, and I will wait for second buyer.
the second buyer gets a building inspector and finds nothing. so seller sells the property successfully with the clause to protect them.
or
building inspector finds something eg, so buyer points it out. seller doesn't want to decrease price, so second buyer goes away.
until one day, seller get a 3rd buyer that is not vigilant. maybe that sale will go through?

so now i think, maybe a different term. "seller must inform buyer of any known structure/soil/foundation issues that was raised in the past 2 years" would that be too much as well?

in this case, the damage was found in wall of a different unit. which is now the responsibility of all the units. maybe the building inspector would have found fire upgrade wasn;t done? or is it not part of their job...