e items, such as furniture are dishonest and fraudulentpractices. The buyers recourse could be my proposal: The "Sushi Law". Gary Reeser, inspector with G.A.R. Home Inspection told me about a sellershome he had inspected for a client. As he was inspecting the home for thebuyer he went past the kitchen and noticed the seller emptying thedishwasher. He said he didn't think anything about it either, at the time, untilhe went to inspect the appliances in the kitchen and the dishwasher didn'twork. When he questioned the sellers about the dishwasher not working theyhad told him they only store dishes in it, because it didn't work. Gary felt ifhe had not inspected the appliance, because the impression was given theappliance worked, the buyer would have had a "raw deal". He felt the buyerwould have been stuck with either fixing the appliance or replacing it alltogether once the defect was discovered, after the deal was signed and sealed(interview). This "raw deal" that should be included in the proposed law could state: theseller is responsible to detect and repair or replace any appliance that is notfunctioning properly, when the appliance is attached or connected to any partof the home, before a sale is finalized. Items intentionally manipulated tomake them look as though they are in working order could be cause to makethe sale null and void or be negotiated, at the buyers discretion. The buyersrecourse again could be my proposal the "Sushi Law", section II, Appliances. Consumers are taken advantage of and given a "raw deal" by the seller wheninformation is either omitted or exaggerated. Two good examples are faultywiring, a very dangerous situation when information is concealed, and thetrue age of the roof. Two areas that are commonly concealed from the buyer. Both problems could potentially become a major expense for the buyer in arelatively short time. Areas, according to Gary Reeser, that a home inspectordoes not routinely i...
