lersreputation would be threatened for one. Another effect the seller would not like is to have to invest in propertyfor someone else's benefit. The effect could also create a bigger monster then he already was by forcinghim to find new ways to cheat the law. I can see some objections the seller would have to my proposal because there areprograms that do protect the consumer that are already in effect today. The Fair Housing Act, is one such program,however it is limited. The act provides protection from, "discrimination in housing because of race,national origin, religion, sex familial status and handicap" (The Fair...Act). Another protection option out there for a buyer is also limited to the sellers action ofpurchasing a home warranty. As described by, Ilyee Glick, an insurance broker, "The warranty is a servicecontract that sellers can purchase and included in the sale of the real estate, as a marketing incentive fortheir home" (Glink) The warranty covers the cost of; repairing or replacing kitchen appliances andmechanical and electrical systems. The seller pays the annual premium covering everything that is workingthe day of the closing, and for a year after. Should something go wrong, the buyer is only responsible forthe service fee which is comparable to an insurance deductible of around $35 to $85 per visit. Accordingto realtor, Pam Dickkerson, "The only problem with the warranty program is there are only a few sellersthat offer the warranty to buyers and usually only to real estate transaction over $150,000.00." (n. pag.). Through my personal experiences with home sellers, my opinion to solve a sellerseagerness to commit fraud the punishment would be greater than the crime. If fraudulent activities were found,I would want drastic measures to curb future violators. I would make the seller liable for intentionalfraudulent activities by requiring the seller to replace, not just repair any substantial defect. The seller wouldalso h...
