Trafficsigntruther t1_j2egcpw wrote
Reply to comment by Zfusco in Roxborough homeowner says developers destroyed her property while building next door by JClurvesfries
> because they don't want old home problems, the fact that the builder can't be held responsible for selling a broken product is a problem.
They can be if you put that in your contract.
> If I buy a TV that doesn't work when I get home, I return it to the store. If my new car is missing the power steering, the dealer fixes it.
Because that’s what your contract with them requires.
Zfusco t1_j2eiy7p wrote
It's in nearly every contract. The fact that the standard in philly is a 1 year warranty top to bottom is pretty crazy IMO. You shouldn't be building homes if you can only guarantee a foundation and roof for a year, but that's a separate issue altogether.
The problem is that they know enforcing your contract is out of the reach of most people, and that simply managing their books to their advantage means they'll never face any personal repercussions for it even for folks who can afford a lawyer. I was ready to sue my builder, and the reality was that 3 different lawyers all agreed I'd win, and we'd even be able to pierce the corporate veil due to the circumstances of the particular case, and that all said and done it would cost more than the repair would.
Have you been through it? Suing a builder/Developer? Or are you one? I find that people who suggest "just put it in your contract" are generally ignorant to the fact that enforcing a contract costs money, often times a ton of money. Most people aren't exactly flush with spare cash after buying a home.
Trafficsigntruther t1_j2en9tl wrote
> are generally ignorant to the fact that enforcing a contract costs money,
Not really ignorant to it at all. on the business side, but the concept and costs are the same.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments