Instead of the previous post, what if the facts were as follows:
The buyers purchase a summer cottage with the intent of turning it into a full time residence and selling off a lot for 125,000 as part of the transaction. The seller’s disclosure statement indicated there was no known infestation of termites or carpenter ants as well as a number of other items. The seller’s disclosure statement was not a contract – not a warranty. The contract they signed as part of this transaction said that if they didn’t get a pest inspection, then that pest inspection would of in all likelihood reveal termites then they have no right to sue the seller. That’s exactly what happened here.
The buyer did several things after identifying this property. He initiated the process for a land split to sell a lot and he got an inspection on the property. The inspection revealed all sorts of water related issues in the exact area.
I asked you what you thought before about the case when I described it in a neutral tone here. What do you think when I present the facts this way?