patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,521 comments by 15,051 users - FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden, HeadSet, stereotomy online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 62 - 101 of 137 Next » Last » Search these comments
tatupu70
2011 Sep 8, 9:25pm
I find it annoying that in art, science, music, people feel their opinion is a valid as everyone else's. I refuse to accept that notion.
How dare they?
Hopefully you are being sarcastic. I can't quite tell.
leo707
2011 Sep 9, 3:20am
And please don't lump science in with art and music; the latter two are ENTIRELY subjective, and everyone's opinion is indeed just as valid as anyone else's.
Not unlike cooking a meal that would appeal to the majority, people can be trained to make music/art that will be found appealing to most people. This can be done because music/art are not entirely subjective.
There are "formulas" in sound and sight that are inherently more pleasing than others. Why do all pop songs sound similar? One of the first thing every artist learns is the Golden Ratio.
People however all have their own opinions about these things, and I would not say that one's opinion is more "valid" than someone else. That said education and experience often will refine someones taste making it more discriminating or "better" as oliverks1 would probably put it.
Some people can't stand an Islay scotch, who am I to tell them they are "wrong", but after tasting a variety of whiskeys they can gain an appreciation for it. Then after a while they may begin to enjoy what Lagavulin or Ardbeg Uigeadail has to offer.
@tatupu70
First of all thank you to leoj707 for providing the nice whiskey example.
I am not there to set them straight and dictate how they live. People should be free to chose what they want so long as it doesn't "harm" other people. Bizarrely that is not the case in many locations, where strict rules ensure that houses must conform to various cosmetic standard. So someone who wishes to deviate from the norm is penalized by the masses. Often those "deviant" houses are the more interesting houses.
I couldn't disagree more strongly about your statement regarding music or art. I would recommend taking some rigorous music theory classes.
Science is very shaped by experts. Our understanding and what is explored in science is limited by our own experiences. Science is often murky and requires judgement. As an example video that gives a nice example of this (and is a great introductory lecture) is:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-012-introduction-to-biology-fall-2004/video-lectures/lecture-6-genetics-1/
Oliver
Under standard Lebesgue measure (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure), almost all numbers are irrational. So the fact that Golden ratio is irrational is in fact rather unsurprising.
Oliver
tatupu70
2011 Sep 9, 5:10am
I am not there to set them straight and dictate how they live. People should be free to chose what they want so long as it doesn't "harm" other people
I find it annoying that in art, science, music, people feel their opinion is a valid as everyone else's. I refuse to accept that notion.
So, it's OK for them to have an opinion as long as they understand it's not as valid as yours?
@Nomograph
Why would you say my invocation of the Lebesgue measure is invalid? I would argue that the Real numbers is a reasonable model for the "real" world. Number theory is usually more concerned with finite fields, Z, and the Gaussian integers. If you agree Reals are a reasonable basis for looking at the world, which measure would you prefer? If you think the Reals are not a good general purpose model for the real world, which field, ring, or group would you chose?
Oliver
@tatupu70
I think it is more nuanced than that. The problem arises when communities need to make decisions on how certain things will be done. For example, look at the teaching of evolution and alternate theories in schools.
What is the correct framework to decide that? If you take it by majority vote, many school districts would no longer teach it. This runs counter to the experts in biology and genetics. I would argue that the decision has been made that some peoples opinions are not as valid as other people.
So my position is sometimes my opinion is more valid than yours. Sometimes mine is significantly less valid than yours. My opinion is not all opinions are equal valid. This probably goes against the opinion of most people, but I am arguing that it should be a more wildly held opinion. I hope I manage to convince you of this.
I need to go do some work!
Oliver
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2011 Sep 9, 6:16am
99.9% of houses are architecturally insignificant. In fact, some famous architects choose to live in insignificant houses for one reason or another. Architectural significance is about the last thing most people look for.
Floor plans change with time, house size, and societal needs. In the 1950s and 1960s, the kitchen was a little room where the woman did her work. The man building the house didn't want to devote much space and money to it, so it was small and closed off. Now, it is a social room & a place where the family can spend time with mom who works during the day. Smaller houses may benefit from a closed off kitchen where the walls and cabinets add storage space. In bigger houses, the space is not so critical, and so they open it up for a nice airy light-filled and connected feeling.
When looking at newer apartment complexes, the manager always comes out and shows you a bunch of floor plans. The average person can look at this and see which plan fits their lifestyle the best. One reason that the new complex does this is that they know that their new floor plan fits contemporary expectations, and people will like them.
leo707
2011 Sep 9, 7:08am
First of all thank you to leoj707 for providing the nice whiskey example.
As much as I like Islay malts, the best whiskey ever is "North of Scotland" bottled by Scott's.
Anyone who disagrees either:
1. Has not tried it
-or-
2. Is wrong
@Nomograph,
A sketch of the proof is as follows. It can be a little hard to write proofs with only text, so please let me know if something is unclear.
Let I = R - Q (or the Irrationals are the Reals take away the Rationals). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number.
The set Q is countably infinite (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number#Properties). The diagram shows an example mapping of the positive integers onto the positive rationals. So the rational must be the same size or smaller than the integers. As the integers are included in the rationals they must be the same size set. Z is countable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set). Hence Q is countable.
Let (a,b) be the set of real numbers x such that a
@Nomograph,
Sorry for all these posts but the less than sign was causing problems.
A sketch of the proof is as follows. It can be a little hard to write proofs with only text, so please let me know if something is unclear.
Let I = R - Q (or the Irrationals are the Reals take away the Rationals). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number.
The set Q is countably infinite (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number#Properties). The diagram shows an example mapping of the positive integers onto the positive rationals. So the rational must be the same size or smaller than the integers. As the integers are included in the rationals they must be the same size set. Z is countable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set). Hence Q is countable.
Let (a,b) be the set of real numbers x such that a less than x less than b.
Referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure
The Lebesgue measure of (a,b) = b-a by property 1.
We want to show the assertion that any countably infinite set has Lebesgue measure zero.
This can be seeing by constructing a covering over the countable set. Chose a positive number e. Let your countable numbers be called Q= {q1, q2, q3, ...}. Let your covering be
(q1-e/4,q1+e4) U (q2-e/8,q2+e/8) U (q3-e/16,q+e/16) ...
This covering has Lebesgue measure of no more than e (it might be less due to overlaps) by property 2 and a little work.
As Q is contained inside our covering the Lebesgue measure of Q must be less than e by property 5.
As our choice of e was any positive real, the measure of Q must be less than any positive real. However property 4 states all measures must be greater than or equal to zero. So the measure of Q is zero.
This shows that the measure of countably infinite sets are zero.
The actual "mass" of the rational numbers is nothing under Lebesgue measure. This is surprising as it says that the numbers we know and love really insignificant in comparison to all the Reals (there are other results that show this without using measures). For example the measure of (0,1) is 1. (0,1) contains an infinite number of rationals, but they take up no space.
Oliver
HousingWatcher
2011 Sep 9, 11:44am
I don't see what all the belly aching about floor plans is over. First, to get a PROFESSIONALLY done floor plan made up costs money. I'm not talking about rough sketches, but the types of floor plans they hand oout at new developments and large apartment complexes. Those are all professionally made. And most peopel don't really care. They would rather see photos.
@leoj707
I'll take your word for it. I might even try a bottle, can you give me an estimate of how much it should cost?
What should I be looking for in it?
Oliver
leo707
2011 Sep 9, 12:56pm
I think I paid just under 200 for my last bottle. I got it at klwines.com. I have got it from bevmo before, but I think they don't have any more bottles.
http://www.klwines.com/detail.asp?sku=1018111
Smooth, light a little sweet and very complex it is an excelent scotch from nose to finish, and the finish is verrryyy long. Probably the longest finish I have ever experinced. You could probably find better tasting notes.
It is the only bottle I have tasted in the 200+ range that I thought was worth the price.
Disclaimers do not prevent lawsuits.
Proper disclosure does. This is all about disclosure.
The lawsuit thing is a red herring. It's all about salesmanship.
You know nothing of the law. Pretty much the first thing you would learn in law school is that all the disclaimers in the world aren't going to protect you. Do you think the warning labels McDonald's has on their coffee cups now, "Warning! Coffee is hot", is going to ensure that they never get sued again? Best you can do is increase your odds of winning the case; you will not guarantee that you don't get sued. A warning label does not automatically bar lawsuits. The only sure fire way to prevent lawsuits is to refrain from engaging in any kind of behavior that you could be sued for.
Get real. You can't just shrug off liability by saying, "Uh, gee - we warned 'em".
Anyone selling a house for $200K or up can spare an hour to create a floor plan.
Anyone buying a house for $200K or up can spare 10 minutes to go look at the house.
gameisrigged says
Why can't you just have your realtor call the listing agent and ask?
Perhaps I don't want a buyer's agent? If that did work it'd just be another thing keeping realtors in the driver's seat.
Then call the listing agent yourself. Did you break your finger?
@Nomograph
I attempted to provide a proof for you. You said, "I see nothing about Lebesgue measure that makes most numbers irrational." You came back with the sarcastic comment, "Congratulations, you've arrived at a trivial solution. At least it only took you three posts to do it." This was a proof you requested. A proof I spent time trying to formulate in a readable manner. Writing is not my strong point, so the effort involved was considerable.
I did apologize that my using the less than sign confused the website. I did not realize that was going to happen. It took two attempts for me to understand where the problem was. I apologize again, I did not mean to clutter the board with attempted posts.
At this stage I see no point in responding to you. I can only hope that time may teach you that passion infects both science and math, as it does art and music. One day you may also discover that art and music are not so subjective, but I am not going to hold my breath.
Good luck, and Viva le floor plan!
Oliver
@Nomograph
I attempted to provide a proof for you. You said, "I see nothing about Lebesgue measure that makes most numbers irrational." You came back with the sarcastic comment, "Congratulations, you've arrived at a trivial solution. At least it only took you three posts to do it." This was a proof you requested. A proof I spent time trying to formulate in a readable manner. Writing is not my strong point, so the effort involved was considerable.
I did apologize that my using the less than sign confused the website. I did not realize that was going to happen. It took two attempts for me to understand where the problem was. I apologize again, I did not mean to clutter the board with attempted posts.
At this stage I see no point in responding to you. I can only hope that time may teach you that passion infects both science and math, as it does art and music. One day you may also discover that art and music are not so subjective, but I am not going to hold my breath.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2011 Sep 11, 11:36am
Anyone selling a house for $200K or up can spare an hour to create a floor plan.
Anyone buying a house for $200K or up can spare 10 minutes to go look at the house.
I looked at about 5 houses before buying one. It took much longer than 10 minutes per house. Maybe if you happen to live next door and are a realtor, you can look at a house in 10 minutes. Seriously, how do you figure 10 minutes?
Plus, only 1 person sells a particular house. Multiple people look at it, so it is more efficient for the seller to spend the time. Plus the seller gets the benefit of a higher price. A typical listing on ebay for a $200 product has a more detailed and informative listing than the average real estate listing. For whatever reason, the realtors doing the listing either think there is some benefit to withholding information or they are terribly lazy.
You answered your own question. If they showed you the floor plan, you wouldn't be interested.
You know nothing of the law. Pretty much the first thing you would learn in law school is that all the disclaimers in the world aren't going to protect you. Do you think the warning labels McDonald's has on their coffee cups now, "Warning! Coffee is hot", is going to ensure that they never get sued again? Best you can do is increase your odds of winning the case; you will not guarantee that you don't get sued. A warning label does not automatically bar lawsuits. The only sure fire way to prevent lawsuits is to refrain from engaging in any kind of behavior that you could be sued for.
To the contrary, you are misunderstanding that the law is highly context-dependent and fact-dependent. You are also comparing a products liability/negligence case to a disclosure about real estate case, which is highly misguided. Trying to generalize from a coffee case to real estate is not a very good example.
The standards of negligence for product liability do not apply here. This is not about having a generic warning label for a product. This is about having a drawing that indicates the general location of rooms in the house, without necessarily being to scale. The characteristics of that type of drawing can easily be disclosed in the real estate context and is not at all comparable to a warning label. It is not misleading, it is not fraudulent, and it is not misrepresentative. All you're saying is that an inadequate warning label doesn't protect you from bad design, but that's a poor legal argument to apply in this case which involves legal disclosure. You can sell someone a crappy house as long as you disclose that it's crappy, but you can't do that with a dangerously designed product in the same manner without additional thought.
By the way, if you've been to law school, you'd know that that's not the first thing you'd learn in law school. At any good law school, you'd learn far more about theory and very little about practical things.
As much as I like Islay malts, the best whiskey ever is "North of Scotland" bottled by Scott's.
Definitely haven't had that one, but there are a variety of $200 bottles I haven't tasted yet (at least the 1964, which seems to be commonly available, appears to be in that price range). Michael Jackson thought it lacked dimension, although according to one other review I saw, they liked it.
By the way, this might be one of the rare cases you can get a bottle for cheaper than K&L, but that's a great shop.
To the contrary, you are misunderstanding that the law is highly context-dependent and fact-dependent. You are also comparing a products liability/negligence case to a disclosure about real estate case, which is highly misguided. Trying to generalize from a coffee case to real estate is not a very good example.
Utter nonsense. "The law is highly context-dependent and fact-dependent". That is virtually a truism. You just said absolutely nothing. The law is fact dependent? Gee, ya think? (That's sarcasm, son).
I am not making any comparison of one area of law to another. I am explaining a general principle to you, one which obviously went straight over your head.
WARNINGS. DO. NOT. AUTOMATICALLY. PREVENT. LAWSUITS.
That is a general principle. One you might want to memorize right now. If you think a warning is an automatic bar to a lawsuit, then you know absolutely nothing of the law. Period.
The standards of negligence for product liability do not apply here. This is not about having a generic warning label for a product.
So then you are arguing that since it is a drawing rather than a "product", that general principles of law do not apply? That's horseshit.
This is about having a drawing that indicates the general location of rooms in the house, without necessarily being to scale. The characteristics of that type of drawing can easily be disclosed in the real estate context and is not at all comparable to a warning label. It is not misleading, it is not fraudulent, and it is not misrepresentative.
The fact that you keep repeating something over and over does not render it true.
WARNINGS. DO. NOT. AUTOMATICALLY. PREVENT. LAWSUITS.
All you're saying is that an inadequate warning label doesn't protect you from bad design, but that's a poor legal argument to apply in this case which involves legal disclosure. You can sell someone a crappy house as long as you disclose that it's crappy, but you can't do that with a dangerously designed product in the same manner without additional thought.
Wow, talk about misguided. You are making a completely inapt comparison. Disclosing a flaw in a house that you are RESELLING is not the same as CREATING a drawing that purports to represent the internal layout of a house.
A better comparison would be a builder who built a house with an unstable foundation and then tried to sell it by saying, "I make no guarantees about the stability of the foundation". Nope, can't do it. That builder could be sued, and probably would lose. Disclosure does not automatically protect you.
I looked at about 5 houses before buying one. It took much longer than 10 minutes per house. Maybe if you happen to live next door and are a realtor, you can look at a house in 10 minutes. Seriously, how do you figure 10 minutes?
5 houses? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!! Seriously? You're bitching that you had to look at 5 houses? Try 100 houses, and maybe you would get my interest. Sheesh, talk about "terribly lazy".
Look, if you can't eliminate a house in 10 minutes, you aren't going about it right. If you want to buy it, by all means you should spend WAY more than 10 minutes. You should do a complete inspection at the very minimum. But if you don't like it, why would you spend more than 10 minutes looking at it?
Plus, only 1 person sells a particular house. Multiple people look at it, so it is more efficient for the seller to spend the time. Plus the seller gets the benefit of a higher price. A typical listing on ebay for a $200 product has a more detailed and informative listing than the average real estate listing. For whatever reason, the realtors doing the listing either think there is some benefit to withholding information or they are terribly lazy.
I don't think that's a great comparison. If I'm buying something on eBay, I need to know every last detail, because that is the only chance I will have to find out about it before committing to the purchase. If I'm buying a house, I'm sure as hell not going to commit to buying it based only on the MLS listing. I'm going to go look at it, have it inspected, etc.
And I really don't see how posting a floor plan is going to get anyone a higher price.
You know, I just don't understand all the resistance for posting a floorplan or a photo of a floorplan sketch on a damn napkin is all about.
Hell, most people who buy a car, which may be expensive for sure but most likely no more than 1/10th the cost of a home purchase, expect some good detailed description of what they are thinking of purchasing. As far as a new car is concerned, yep, the glossier the magazines and brochures, the more dimensions provided, close ups of spaces, finishes, and for gear heads all the stats, etc. the better. If one expects all of this when shopping/ purchasing say a 50K car, then why is is so difficult to come up with a 20 minute mock up of a floor plan for a home that may cost 500K or 1,5K? I mean really, jeeesh, just sayin'.
And all that crap about being sued for posting a floorplan drawing is bull. I have seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of homes advertised with a floor plan. Most come with some form of disclaimer. I seriously doubt this practice used by some of your better realtors would still be in play if they were getting their pants sued off.
The only reason not to advertise a floor plan is if your home has a crummy one to begin with or if you have a lazy realtor. Like I said before, many can't even take a good set of photos for homes even in the million plus range where the seller is putting out 60K or more to complete a deal.
Hell, most people who buy a car, which may be expensive for sure but most likely no more than 1/10th the cost of a home purchase, expect some good detailed description of what they are thinking of purchasing. As far as a new car is concerned, yep, the glossier the magazines and brochures, the more dimensions provided, close ups of spaces, finishes, and for gear heads all the stats, etc. the better. If one expects all of this when shopping/ purchasing say a 50K car, then why is is so difficult to come up with a 20 minute mock up of a floor plan for a home that may cost 500K or 1,5K? I mean really, jeeesh, just sayin'.
What on earth are you talking about? I'm holding an ad from a car dealer in my hand right now. It has the name of the car, a small stock photo (only one), and it says "$3000 off MSRP" That is the ONLY information given about the car. It doesn't even give the price. MLS listings give FAR more information than that.
People are willing to drive across town to go look at cars with almost no information, but you want to be spoon-fed everything about a house before you can bother yourself to hop in the car and go look at it?
I am not making any comparison of one area of law to another. I am explaining a general principle to you, one which obviously went straight over your head.
WARNINGS. DO. NOT. AUTOMATICALLY. PREVENT. LAWSUITS.
Please give a real world example of when someone was sued and lost for providing an imperfect floor plan that clearly stated it was an imperfect floor plan. Otherwise, please stop spouting this nonsense. Might as well take 0 pictures because they could be not 100% accurate after a couple months. Might as well not list sq ft at all because you might have been misinformed in the past and be off by a sq ft. Better yet, just don't sell your house, board it up and hide because someone might see you and sue you.
You're being crazy and belittling people for not being paranoid like you. No one is going to sue you if it's clearly there on the sketch. You can even mention it again when they come to the house. You can make them sign a paper saying they acknowledge the sketch at imperfect. Jesus, just stop being crazy. The topic is "Is a sketched floor plan useful", not "oh no I can be sued for this hurrghgghhh"
You know, I just don't understand all the resistance for posting a floorplan or a photo of a floorplan sketch on a damn napkin is all about.
Neither do I.
You're being crazy and belittling people for not being paranoid like you. No one is going to sue you if it's clearly there on the sketch. You can even mention it again when they come to the house. You can make them sign a paper saying they acknowledge the sketch at imperfect. Jesus, just stop being crazy. The topic is "Is a sketched floor plan useful", not "oh no I can be sued for this hurrghgghhh"
Wow, what a well-reasoned, rational argument. Do you always flip out when you start losing a debate?
Wow, what a well-reasoned, rational argument. Do you always flip out when you start losing a debate?
It's not a debate, you've been attacking every commenter with this nonsense. Are you going to provide an example of someone being sued for an imperfect, clearly labeled floor plan or not?
Here is an online brochure for a mercedes; Price: $49,000. http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/brochures/2011_ESedan_Wagon.pdf
I could pick out any new car, all come with a 10+ page glossy brochure. For a home 10x, 20x or 30x as much? Perhaps a one pager.
bmwman91
2011 Sep 12, 4:05pm
I could pick out any new car, all come with a 10+ page glossy brochure. For a home 10x, 20x or 30x as much? Perhaps a one pager.
Bro, the hard working RE professionals already DO put in a lot of work. It is hard to find the caps lock key and I trust anyone that can wade through all 104+ keys to find it. And spell check...my god, you'd have to search through a menu or something. Besides, typing a 3 sentence description shows plenty of effort, and requiring proper spelling or grammar would just put RE professionals out of work! Let's not get greedy now.
Here is an online brochure for a mercedes; Price: $49,000. http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/brochures/2011_ESedan_Wagon.pdf
I could pick out any new car, all come with a 10+ page glossy brochure. For a home 10x, 20x or 30x as much? Perhaps a one pager.
Faulty analogy. That is a brochure from the MANUFACTURER, not the dealer. Home manufacturers provide a similar level of detail. For example:
Wow, what a well-reasoned, rational argument. Do you always flip out when you start losing a debate?
It's not a debate, you've been attacking every commenter with this nonsense. Are you going to provide an example of someone being sued for an imperfect, clearly labeled floor plan or not?
Gee, another stellar argument from you. Seems like YOU are the one on the attack, not me. You have attacked about 5 different people in this thread, just because they didn't agree with your petulant whining about floorplans.
Here's a better idea. YOU provide an example of someone who was barred from filing a lawsuit because there was a warning label on a floorplan saying it "might not be accurate".
Disclaimers don't prevent lawsuits.
Gee, another stellar argument from you. Seems like YOU are the one on the attack, not me. You have attacked about 5 different people in this thread, just because they didn't agree with your petulant whining about floorplans.
Right, that's debating. My view is an opinion that I try to defend. I could be wrong, floor planes could be killing house sales everywhere so they're rarely listed. By debating the issue I learn more; I did learn that withholding that information helps realtors, that was something I didn't consider. I'm not shutting down conversation, I'm inviting it. That is why I started the thread, and why the title is a question.
You are stating your stance as a fact, reminding everyone about that fact, but I see no facts. I see nothing to believe anyone will be sued for providing a good faith sketch. If you would like to say that your stance is just your opinion, then I won't question it further. If it's a fact, I just want to see one example to back up that fact.
Here's a better idea.
You couldn't provide ONE example. Thanks for playing.
YOU provide an example of someone who was barred from filing a lawsuit because there was a warning label on a floorplan saying it "might not be accurate".
"Might not be accurate"? It wouldn't be accurate, it's a sketch. They need to address that, not try to mislead the buyer. It's a good faith sketch, not a sales trick. I still believe we live in a world where people who provide extra information in good faith, while still covering the bases with a clear disclaimer, will not be sued for it.
Luckily, you agree. You would shutdown my entire argument with one example. You seem so adamant this is true, but can't spend one minute to go look up one and paste the link.
Disclaimers don't prevent lawsuits.
Well, in this case they obviously do.
WARNINGS. DO. NOT. AUTOMATICALLY. PREVENT. LAWSUITS.
Repeating obvious and strawman statements doesn't really help explain the law to people. Absolutely nothing absolutely prevents lawsuits because you could get sued when you're completely in the right -- but you can do plenty to mitigate them and to use the law against them. People who are paralyzed in the face of any minimal risk, as you seem to be suggesting, usually don't do very well in business.
I've never said the disclosure would "automatically" "bar" a lawsuit -- in fact it would be stupid to say so. I'm saying it's a perfectly acceptable risk. When you make a fact-dependent and context-dependent analysis, you decide it based on risks and decide whether the risk is acceptable. Simply repeating stock phrases doesn't help.
What I gave is a reasoned opinion that is based on reality and facts. Yes, you might get sued by some retard whose case will be dismissed immediately, fine. You can get sued for all kinds of stupid reasons that get dismissed -- simply saying "you could get sued" is not helpful. Prisoners start handwritten lawsuits on notebook paper that are meritless too -- should you spend a meaningful amount of time protecting against that too? Absolutely not.
Similarly, the fears of realtors here is really unfounded. This is a pure disclosure issue, and any minimal suit can likely be easily dismissed, and if one were to go forward, a precedential decision in favor of realtors would likely result.
Moreover, on incredibly expensive houses, realtors provide floorplans all the time. Look at a site like SocketSite. I haven't heard of any lawsuits over these.
A better comparison would be a builder who built a house with an unstable foundation and then tried to sell it by saying, "I make no guarantees about the stability of the foundation". Nope, can't do it. That builder could be sued, and probably would lose. Disclosure does not automatically protect you.
No, that's a crappy example. The builder has an implicit warranty. When I sell you my house, I don't necessarily have one.
You seem unwilling to have a reasoned discussion and instead prefer to repeat useless phrases over and over that don't really say anything. Good for you, but I'm done.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2011 Sep 13, 5:30am
Look, if you can't eliminate a house in 10 minutes, you aren't going about it right.
You can't drive to a house, wait for a Realtor, and drive home in 10 minutes unless you pretty much live next door. Get real.
« First « Previous Comments 62 - 101 of 137 Next » Last » Search these comments
It's frustrating to view 10-20 pictures online and try to piece together the layout of a house, especially when most pictures are literally the corner of a room. Don't waste my time! There are only a few pictures I care about initially.
1. Floor plan
2. Front of house
3. Back of house
4. Kitchen
Why, oh why, is there NEVER a floor plan for anything but new houses? Is it some sort of safety precaution? Is it because no one wants to take 1 hour to draw one in MS Paint if they don't have it? Is it because no one wants to sell their house?
I think I speak for most people that if a house isn't laid out a certain way, I don't want to waste my time. Putting the floor plan online attracts buyers who are interested in the house layout, and wastes less item on both ends of the transaction.