Earlier today I had state Sen. Brian Weinstein on The Dave Ross Show talking about SB 6385, his Home Buyer’s Bill of Rights. The bill would simply give purchasers of a new single family home the same basic warranty and rights provided to condo buyers since 1990. Right now it’s virtually impossible for a home buyer to sue a contractor for shoddy workmanship and materials — even violations of the building codes. This bill would fix that.
The bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and in the House Judiciary Committee, but faces a fast approaching Friday, 5PM deadline to get to the floor of the House for a vote. While it certainly doesn’t hurt to complain on the radio or a blog, it’s a helluva lot more effective to complain to your representative directly, so that’s why I urge you to call the legislative hotline at 800-562-6000 and ask your representative to urge House Speaker Frank Chopp to give this bill a vote.
Righties often complain that our elected officials don’t listen to us, but that’s just because they want us to give up. The truth is, they do listen to us, we just don’t speak up often enough. Give your reps a call at 800-562-6000 and ask them to pass SB 6385, the Home Buyer’s Bill of Rights.
Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, a principal funder of the vicious Swift Boat Liars smear attacks on John Kerry, is bankrolling a nationwide campaign to do to homebuyers throughout the country what his industry has done in Texas — to stack the deck so heavily against consumers that if you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars are on a home so poorly built that it amounts to a swindle — you have no legal rights in the courts and have to settle for an arbitration process controlled by the homebuilders and their cronies.
That’s almost like buying a home from the Mafia.
We don’t want that situation here. This bill should be a must-pass priority of this Legislature. Call your state representative today.
This may be a trifle off-topic, but I’m wondering if the following has occurred to y’all:
The destruction of those new homes in Woodinville is sad, and the scurrilous fools who torched them deserve to be brought to justice. However, it’s inevitable that the BIAW is going to gain some useful street cred by stepping up with its reward offer. As we progress through this election year, are we going to see a new ‘winger mantra emerge labelling as “frends of the ELF eco-terrorists” anyone who criticizes the BIAW’s political agenda or the candidates it supports…Rossi in particular?
It’s not impossible, virtual or otherwise, for a homebuyer to sue a contractor for shoddy work as you’ve stated above. Contractors are sued all the time.
It would probably be more productive if the State imposed more standards on obtaining and retaining a contractors license.
Senate Bill 6385, says a construction professional has to exercise “reasonable care” and if failure to do so “results in damage to any portion of the real property,” the buyer can sue. That’s the broad type of language that attorney’s love to have in a law because it allows them to sue for just about anything.
The problem is that insurers will simply refuse to insure residential construction. Poorly worded legislation is the playpen of unscrupulous lawyers. Unfortunately its everyone else who pays the price.
@2…AF…
You don’t have to look for the dark cloud associated with every silver lining.
That the Woodinville arsonists are common criminals ought to be self-evident, just as those who torched the poplar research labes at the UW and in Oregon. No crime is more serious nor more terrifying than arson, and those who torch should go to prison for a very long time.
This isn’t about political POVs, it’s about the criminal law.
The Piper
@4 “unscrupulous lawyers”? Is there any other kind? ;)
RR @ 1: Those mandatory arbitration proceedings can be a real obstical to any meaningful recovery. It’s no wonder that they are finding their way into most employment contracts and even health insurance policies.
First of all, consider the “entry fee” for filing a claim for arbitration. In most civil courts in this country, you can file a lawsuit by paying a fee of (usually) less than $250.00. If a lawyer thinks you have a good enough case that he is likely to get paid if you prevail, then you can use a contingent fee to pay him/her when the case is over. If you lose, he doesn’t get paid either. Of course, there are the litigation costs (expert witnesses, deposition transcripts, copying of records, etc.), but the lawyer may advance those costs on behalf of the client.
But in arbitration proceedings, the arbitrators are usually paid in advance, with both parties having to put one-half of the arbitrator’s estimated fees into the kitty before the case begins. The arbitrators are often attorneys, and they are charging their full hourly rate to sit in judgment on the case. Corporate lawyers, such as those representing the building industry against lawsuits, easily make $500.00 per hour, and the panel probably consists of one industry lawyer, one consumer lawyer, and one lawyer picked by the other two arbitrators. So figure that you are paying for one and a half lawyers at an hourly rate of $300 to $500 per hour, with an estimated billable time of at least 40 hours each devoted to the case, and a homeowner may well find that they are asked to kick in $20,000 to $40,000 before they even start.
This acts as a very real burdon on homeowners being able to bring their claims into court, or for an employee to assert discrimination claims, etc.
@5
So if it turns out that the builders of these particular homes burned them down on purpose for the insurance money, should they get the same punishment as if they were burned down by eco-terrorists?
@8 Question for you Lee – If the builders burned those houses, it was done, most likely, for insurance purposes. Right? So we’re talking about fraud, which is definitely a criminal act. However, if it was ELF then would we say terrorism, or criminal act? I think you have to go with terrorism, since this was a political act. Therefore it should receive a harsher sentence. Afterall, do we not condemn so-called “hate crimes” for the same reason? That is that they are a fundamentally political act which our society finds particularly reprehensible? If hate crimes are worthy of additional punishment, then so is political terrorism.
@9
I completely agree with that assessment. I was asking if Piper agrees with that too.
Better yet, follow the lead of Texas, and adopt a homebuilders bill of rights. Texas homebuilders had problems with so many pesky, annoying lawsuits by homeowners — especially the fact that homeowners were winning these lawsuits — that they had to get their Republican legislature and governor to pass law regulating homeowners. Now in Texas, homeowners can no longer sue homebuilders in court, but must use private arbitration services selected by the homebuilders. And the legal liability of homebuilders is limited by law.
We don’t have a primary night thread yet, so forgive me for posting off topic :)
Looks like Obama is headed for a 20%-plus victory over Clinton in Vermont, based on the exit polls.
Ohio is really close. Exit polls show Clinton ahead by 9 points among women (59%) and Obama ahead by 5 points among men (41%). Clinton would win by 3 to 4 points with those numbers.
McCain is stomping Huckabee in Ohio and annihilating him in Vermont.
5/8/9: Ok, hold on….I wasn’t necessarily trying to pass out the tinfoil hats. However, judging by the BIAW’s past behavior in the political arena, it would be atypical of them not to make as much political lemonade out of this sorry truckload of lemons as they can…in the same way that whether or not BushCo and the neocons, on a national level, surely used the political capital generated by 9/11, whether they were in any way responsible for that or not…or is anyone going to try and deny their following to the letter the PNAC order-of-worship (published years beforehand!) using 9/11 as the therein-mentioned “Perl-Harbor type event”?
And Piper….in case you’ve forgotten, this is a political blog. Nearly everything expressed in here comes from a “political POV”.
My statements in #13 above notwithstanding….These were the homes in last year’s Street of Dreams, right? And if I read the Pee-Eye story correctly, only one of the three that were torched even had earnest money down on it. That does mean, doesn’t it, that here were some developers who’d been on the hook with their bankers for some major bucks for long enough that they must have been getting pretty sweaty palms. A couple years ago, places like this would have had bids on them before they were finished.
You lefties don’t know how businesses assess risks and decide whether to build the house in the first place. Your bill increases the risks to the “good” contractors and design professionals by increasing their potential liability. This increased risk drives the prudent and/or careful ones away from residential work and into other markets. Leaving only the “bottom feeders” who either have no assets or form bogus LLC’s for each home they build, or can’t think far enough ahead to know that they are begging to get sued every time they build a house.
The lawyers pushing this bill don’t care: the more bottom feeders that are out there building homes, the more fees the lawyers earn!
You will have accomplished nothing, other than increasing the percentage of house construction and remodelling done by bottom feeders.
15 So….let me see if I’ve got this straight. Making it easier for a homebuyer to sue the contractor that screwed him will discurage said contractor from doing residential construction at all, because it’s too “risky” to do that kind of work without being able to screw the customer with impunity.
Presumably, a contractor who is thus persuaded to “do other things” will instead take on commercial work. Most of the “legal reforms” of the last couple of decades have in fact removed restrictions on legal actions large corporations can take. So why would it be less “risky” to do work for a large corporate custumer who can sue your ass from here to Sunday?
Another example of right-wing delusionalism. You mustn’t have even learned the stuff Robert Fulghum says you should have picked up in kindergarten.
Oh…speaking of how businesses “assess risks” (and deal with them): My wife’s family are from New England, where it’s not uncommon to hear the term “successful fire” when a failing business is able to sell its premises to the insurance company.
@15
That is some serious head-wedged-way-up-the-ass logic right there. Wow!
Basically, he’s saying that the threat of lawsuits will only work against the people who aren’t likely to be sued, but will not persuade those who will. Impressive…
art fart
Your comments presume that every home builder is a crook out to screw the buyers. That is not where I am coming from, and if you had any experience in “the real world” you would not either.
And commercial construction is way less risky because the commercial customers are too busy making money to sue a contractor for every loose hinge. Commercial buildings are held to a lower standard: ever been in an office building with a floor out of level? Well in a house that would be a lawsuit.
Those builders are quite successful and probably dont
even have construction loans on them. Environmentalists
like these retards ought to be turned into biodiesel.
19/20 I happen to have a fair amount of experience in the “real world” as you call it, I daresay probably a few more years thereof than you do.
And Mark, that’s pure horseshit. Everyone does business with “other peoples’ money”. I think you just tipped your hand to the effect that you aren’t the civil engineer you claim to be, nor have you any experience in the building biz.
@3 “It’s not impossible, virtual or otherwise, for a homebuyer to sue a contractor for shoddy work as you’ve stated above. Contractors are sued all the time.”
No, they’re NOT sued “all the time.” They’re sued only if they cheat their customers. Perry, the BIAW, and their allies want to take away that right so they’ll have a free hand to keep cheating people — and to keep secret the fact they’re selling shoddy houses and stealing buyers’ money.
Perry and his allies were successful in Texas, and here is what Texas homebuyers put up with:
Homes built on top of toxic waste dumps. Homes with faulty plumbing and wiring, leaky roofs, and mold. Buyers will forfeit their warranties if they hire their own contractors to make repairs while builders delay for months or even years. Mandatory arbitration with decisions made in secret by homebuilder cronies and sealed records so other prospective buyers can’t find out how bad the homes were and how badly the builders’ kangaroo courts screwed unsuspecting buyers.
That’s our future in Washington, too, if Bob Perry’s money and BIAW’s political influence get sway here.
“In case you haven’t kept up with Mr. Perry he is the homebuilder that has the Texas couple Bob and Jane Cull, locked in a 10-year legal battle over structural problems with their house. He is also the man who spent $8 million in campaign contributions to influence the creation of a new (2003) state agency that regulates homebuyers.”
http://tinyurl.com/2mppgd
You read that right: Perry lobbies for the creation of state agencies regulating HOMEBUYERS. Talk about a fucking PROTECTION RACKET.
“In Texas, … Perry’s campaign donations coupled with aggressive industry lobbying efforts … resulted in … changes tangibly favorable to the homebuilder industry. It is no secret … the … industry would like to see similar … reforms, especially those of a judicial nature, implemented on a national scale. …
“… [C]ritics of the Texas overhauls … point to a chilling of legal recourse options for homebuyers seeking reparation for … shoddy workmanship ….
“Any speculation over Bob Perry’s behind the scenes national politicking requires a closer glance at his actions in Texas ….
“Janet Ahmed recalls a day in 2003 when she and other homeowner activists were at the Texas legislature in Austin promoting a Home Lemon Law bill … she couldn’t help but notice the large number of women, mostly elderly, … dutifully shuffling about the State House. When quizzed by Ahmed, a few of the women said they were in town to talk to legislators about all those ‘awful frivolous lawsuits’ in Texas that were costing consumers so much money … the busloads of elderly lobbyist were … brought in, fed breakfast as well as slanted information … by … coaches connected to the Texas homebuilder industry … to promote tort reform specifically favorable to home builders and developers. Ahmed says the … tort reform blitz was organized by … the brother of another Texas homebuilder/developer, David Weekly … and … bankrolled by … Perry and Weekly ….
“Back before George W. Bush was elected Governor of Texas, the state’s homebuilder lobby had won passage of the Residential Construction Liability Act. The RCLA gave builders the ‘right to repair’ a construction defect, before the consumer could take the homebuilder to court. According [to] homeowner advocates … the … act … [left] homebuyers at the mercy of the homebuilders.
” .. Legislation was passed placing limits on the amount of money that could be awarded to a homebuyer in a legal dispute, regardless of a builder’s determined level of negligence. Later legislation went further, making it more difficult for homebuyers to prove damage or structural flaws may have been caused during the original construction process.
“A 2004 ‘Los Angeles Times’ article reported that … builders … add[ed] arbitration clauses to their contracts forcing unhappy homeowners to take complaints before private arbitrators, rather than a judge and jury. The ‘Times’ noted that in 2003, the state legislature formed a new nine member ‘Residential Construction Commission’ made up of inspectors affiliated with … the homebuilder industry … the … legislation language was crafted by … the lawyer for (Bob) Perry Homes [who] was later appointed … to … the RCC panel.
“In Texas, … ‘Everybody has to go to binding arbitration, even if your roof is leaking or your wall cracking, and sometimes it takes months to resolve’ noted Janet Ahmed who went on to say if the situation is unlivable, and the homebuyer decides to fix the problem themselves, they … forfeit their warranty and future repairs become the sole responsibility of the homeowner.
“At Ahmed’s organization’s web site HOBB.ORG, countless horror stories offer details of … stories where new homeowners discover defects like toxic mold or shoddy structural construction …. HOBB also highlights frustration over new roadblocks in the Texas legal system …. Groups like Public Citizen, Consumers Union and Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings who’ve dealt with arbitration say it amounts to a Kangaroo court. …
“Ahmed says campaign contributions provided Bob Perry and his allies influence over … legislation she argues is now responsible for regulating the home buying public and not the home builder industry. … Ahmed warns that what happened in Texas is coming to the rest of the country … if voters don’t pay attention to the motives of … players like Bob Perry. ‘If the wealthy Texas based homebuilders are able to limit liability in Texas then they are also going to try and influence the political arena in other states to do the same thing,’ she said.”
http://www.codylyon.com/id19.h tml
Read how a Houston couple’s dream home turned into an unbelievable nightmare. The first time they used the bathtub, all the water drained through the ceiling into the dining room. And that was only the beginning.
http://www.motherjones.com/new s/feature/2005/07/home_sour_ho me.html
This is what the poster calling himself “ewp” wants to see happen in Washington. This is the bitter medicine that he and his wingnut cohorts want to help BIAW to force down the throats of Washington consumers. FUCK YOU, EWP. AND FUCK ALL YOUR THIEVING, LYING, CHEATING REPUBLICAN BUDDIES.
Attention, Washington homebuilders: I will never, ever, buy a burrow from any member of BIAW. I wouldn’t trust a BIAW member any farther than I can piss. If you belong to BIAW, forget about ever selling me anything. BIAW membership proves to me you’re a crook.
Here is what Bob Perry does with the money he takes from buyers of his homes:
“Austin, TX: Bob Perry … contributed $200,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ….
“While an active political donor since the mid-1980’s, over the past three years Perry has … positioned himself as the largest single political donor in Texas ….
“Perry worked with Karl Rove as early as 1986 when … Rove served as a campaign consultant and fundraiser.
“Highlights of Perry’s political contributions:
“Perry contributed $46,000 to George W. Bush’s 1994 and 1998 campaigns for Texas Governor. …
“Perry was the largest individual contributor to the Texas Republican Party during the … 2002-election cycle (calendar 2001 & 2002) giving $905,000.
“Perry is Republican Governor Rick Perry’s (no relation) largest patron, having contributed $225,000 since 2001.
“Perry was the largest individual contributor to Republican Lt. Governor David Dewhurst’s 2002 campaign ….
“Perry was the largest individual contributor to Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott’s 2002 campaign, giving $387,600. Perry’s wife Doylene gave Abbott an additional $150,000.
“Perry was the second largest individual contributor to Republican Comptroller Carole Strayhorn’s 2002 campaign, giving $100,000.
“Perry was the largest contributor to Tom DeLay’s … PAC (TRMPAC) giving $165,000 in the 2002 election cycle. TRMPAC is currently the subject of a criminal investigation by a Travis Country grand jury ….
“Perry was the single largest contributor to the Texas Association of Business’ PAC in the 2002, giving $105,000. The Association is also under criminal investigation ….
“Perry contributed a total of $595,500 directly to the campaigns of 23 GOP legislative candidates in the 2002 cycle ….
“Perry contributed $95,000 to Tom DeLay’s … PAC in 2001.
“Perry has been a primary funder of efforts to limit civil liability in Texas, contributing $415,000 to Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC ….
“Sources: Campaign filings with the Texas Ethics Commission, IRS & FEC. Reports published by Texans for Public Justice and news accounts. Texans for Public Justice is a non-partisan research organization that tracks money in Texas politics.”
http://www.tpj.org/page_view.j.....;pubid=422
@15 “You lefties don’t know how businesses assess risks and decide whether to build the house in the first place. Your bill increases the risks to the “good” contractors and design professionals by increasing their potential liability.”
Let me explain something to you, dipshit. If I, as a consumer, can only buy a new house by assuming all the financial risks of dealing with a dishonest or incompetent builder — then I’m not going to BUY A NEW HOME FROM ANYONE. Good, bad, honest, dishonest, doesn’t make any difference because I have no way of sorting them out. The laws homebuilders want create unacceptable risks for buyers, and I simply won’t participate in such a market.
And if everyone else does the same thing, all the “contractors and design professionals” will go out of business because they won’t have any work.
And commercial construction is way less risky because the commercial customers are too busy making money to sue a contractor for every loose hinge. Commercial buildings are held to a lower standard: ever been in an office building with a floor out of level?
Yes, the 116 building on Microsoft main campus. Some people had offices where you could put a marble anywhere on the floor and it would roll to a corner of the office. Granted, I still survived the Nisqually earthquake in that building.
Well in a house that would be a lawsuit.
And it should be. That’s not acceptable for a home in the 21st century. It’s not hard to make a home level, it just takes more time. Making that a state-mandated requirement for a new home to prevent builders from cutting corners is just common sense.
Zip @ 15 said
“You lefties don’t know how businesses assess risks and decide whether to build the house in the first place.
Funny. I’ve got a bachelor’s and graduate degree from major universities. I worked in small firms for four years, then was in business for myself for over seven years, then went into another business where I was the COO for four years, then joined a large company where I have been involved in international trade in high-technology items for over fourteen years. On the side, we have a family web-related business that continues to grow and provides a few hundred dollars a month in additional income (without too much additional labor). I’ve also bought, rehabed, and sold a few houses on the side. Along the way I’ve also helped quite a few friends establish their own businesses.
Contrarly to the Limbaugh/Hannity “straw man”, quite a few of us here know what we are talking about, and have a track record to prove it. I can prepare a business plan, assess risks, and put together financial statements in my sleep. I’ve seen how business is done, on the small scale and the large.
“Your bill increases the risks to the “good” contractors and design professionals by increasing their potential liability.”
On the contrary, “good” contractors should welcome the bill. It makes it easier for consumers to get compensation from the bad contractors, which (hopefully) will make it harder for them to stay in business. The worst thing for a good contractor is trying to compete on price points with a bad contractor who is willing to cut ethical corners and provide shoddy workmanship in order to sell at a slighty lower price, but a significantly greater profit. In other words, it makes for a fair & level playing field.
It would seem that here are an awful lot of right-wing “businessmen” who without a great deal of undeserved government protection and largesse, would have long since fallen through their asses.
Roger Rabbit, before you start spewing profanity at other posters such as myself, you might get your facts straight. Sen. Weinstein sued his home builder in 2001 and received a settlement. This flies in the face of his assertion that you can’t sue your home builder.
The problem with his legislation as written is that anyone associated with the construction of a home can be sued for a defect, not just the individual responsible for the defect. This includes the initial homeowner who made a decision about the construction. Decide on a different window, window fails, the person who bought the home from you can now include you in the lawsuit. Poorly written legislation, even if the intent is a good one, can have far reaching ramifications and unintended consequences.
The arguements by builder and insurance industry lobbyists that legislative reform for consumers will cause insurance rate hikes is erroneous. Note the article from the American Institute of Architects Magazine (AIArchitect) on the causes of premium rate hikes. This clearly outlines how premium rates are directly tied to the ability of insurance companies to earn investment income on the premium dollars. When the stock market goes down, rates will go up because insurance companies can’t make money on investing the premium dollars. Virtually NOTHING else matters.
http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect.....survey.htm
To ArtFart re: the eco terrorists: I think you could be right that some builder may try to capitalize on the eco terror fires and make it appear that anyone who opposes builders’ efforts to escape liability must therefore be an eco terrorist too. Faulty “logic” but I wouldn’t put it past them.
To ewp re: licensing as an alternative. This is what the builders are proposing in various states but here’s why I think it won’t work. States that license builders still have big problems with shoddy work and lack of practical legal recourse. Licensing agencies often become good old boy clubs, run by the builders they’re supposed to “regulate.” Builders have traditionally fought licensing but when they see it as the alternative to real consumer protection they quickly adopt it, then run it. Re: INSURANCE: if you or I made too many claims our rates would go up too. Builders need to build right and stop trying to use insurance like a warranty.
To zip: This isn’t a “leftie-rightie” argument. Holding companies responsible for a quality product/service is something ALL Americans should be able to do. Re: your comments about commercial construction: In many states commercial contractors have to post a bond whereas residential do not always have to. Also, I have seen PLENTY of lawsuits between commercial GC’s and their subs and the building owners for defects. Go to http://www.irmi.com and many of their construction cases they talk about are commercial or between GC’s and subs. IRMI’s an insurance industry site. And, an “unlevel floor” in a house would not automatically be a lawsuit. Arbitration clauses in builder contracts and home warranty policies prohibit suing and force disputes into industry-friendly private procedures. Suing, if possible, is expensive and many lawyers decline cases because it’s not profitable.
Rhp and Roger make some good points.
Good info Renee, thanks for posting!
@30 Interesting info on the AIA website, however that article is only dealing with professional liability insurance for architects. Again the problem with Sen. Weinstein’s bill is that it’s written too broadly. An insurer is definitely in the business to write policies, that’s how they make money, however if the risk cannot be accurately assessed then they’ll simply stop writing policies for contractors. This is what will likely happen if Sen. Weinstein’s bill passes into law. There isn’t any companion legislation requiring insurers to write policies.
Home buyers currently have options. They can purchase a warranty policy on their own. They can refuse to sign a contract with a builder that requires binding arbitration. The bottom line is that Sen. Weinstein repeatedly states that his legislation is needed because consumers currently cannot sue builders. This statement is patently false. Sen. Weinstein successfully sued his own home builder, and the State’s L&I website actually has a Q&A section on what to do if you want to sue your builder.
Please please vote for this bill. I purchased a brand new house in June 06 that started to fall apart one month after moving in. I am still fighting the builder as they will not take any responsibility and are actually blaming ME for the damages that continually occur. (my house is now uninsurable because it is structurally defective) I am a victim and because of binding arbitration, my hands are tied. I have to live in this defective house because I can’t afford to rent and continue paying a mortgage and there are no consumer laws to protect me from big builders who have D.C. lobbyists, and the senators and congressmen that are fed by these lobbyists on their side.
This bill will not be retroactive to help me, but will assist those who buy defective houses from these big builders (and little builders) in the future. Please please sign this bill. It is time to protect the consumers.
30 “When the stock market goes down, rates will go up because insurance companies can’t make money on investing the premium dollars. Virtually NOTHING else matters.”
And of course all we hear about is their political friends on the right side of the aisle screaming for “tort reform”.
art fart 30 and insurance expert above:
You are correct about the rates. You are not mentioning the loss of available coverage when risks increase above tolerable levels. That is what happens (or at least used to happen when financial markets were not houses of cards) when risks increase too much.
The insurer requires that the business disclose types of projects, prior lawsuits, etc. when applying for coverage and at annual renewal. If they don’t like your disclosure they will not insure you or they will raise YOUR rates.
This bill is a knee jerk to “help” people like distressed 34 and I believe it (1) will make it easier to sue and collect and (2) drive SOME good builders out of residential work creating a void filled by bottom feeders like the ones who built distressed’s house. If that’s what you lefties want, fine but you are being short sighted. In the long run this does nothing to improve the quality of construction.
34-You should have at least a one year warranty…I would look into that if I were you. I understand shoddy construction. I bought my new townhome in Dec ’07 and even in the initial walk thru I pointed out wavy walls, dings in the walls, all of which the builders (Intracorp) customer service rep (My Home Solutions) told me that they won’t fix those. When my year warranty was close, no one bothered to call me to do my year warranty walk thur, they were probably hoping I would forget. In the first 6 months here, I had 7 warranty issues repaired. Those wavy walls and dings, well they refused from the getgo so I live with cosmetic damage.
37 The stuff you really have to worry about is what you can’t see. A friend of mine bought a house once in which the pipe between the shower valve and the shower head in one of the bathrooms hadn’t been hooked together. The first time somebody tried to use it, they turned on the water and stood there for a few minutes wondering why they could hear noise but nothing was coming out. Then they realized the room next door was flooding.
It seems to SJ that this is an easy and obvious issue.
A capitalist system needs a parallel legal system to ensure a free market. As little restriction as possible should be made .. in other words it is obvious that buyers musr have the right to sure builders.
At the same time, it is also obvious that our entire civil law system is fallign apart because of high fees can court costs.
So, Mr. Rabbit …
How can we decrease the costs of litigation so that the playing field is more even?