Regarding the impossibility to work out the buying of the house I let you know few things:
a. The major obstacle was the well water is not potable. I collected samples and I possess a proof of that. Please be advised that in Agreement of Purchase and Sale, which is the base of our firm offer, the Seller warranted that the well water was potable, not at the time of closing day, but anytime after signing the document. It seems that some people like to play with words, but on first place should be the reality itself.
b. The UV treatment of the water is not acceptable for me, as a buyer. The UV system was an added deceit to mask the failure of an agreement stipulation: well water potable. We cannot assume the risk to consume contaminated water. The water is a basic need and we know how easy could be caught someone in some dangerous diseases. We cannot expose ourselves and, in the future, our children, to the risks of contaminated well water. What do you know about Walkerton water tragedy? Lynda Wilson could tell you: “I am 53 years old and thanks to the water tragedy I am on permanent disability and no longer in control of my life.” (http://www.canoe.ca/EcoliTragedy/ecoliyousaidit.html)
c. The seller hired a company to perform works on the property, without our knowledge and consent, to change the water properties with the purpose to prove the water potable (on the day of closing). This behavior shows an intention of the seller to cheat the buyer.
d. Another major risk of this infected well water is the possibility of the water to spread toward neighbor's properties and a neighborhood problem will appear. Who will be responsible?
As you can see having a good well water is not a minor issue.
this a letter i send to get my money back 10 000.i think is a fraud what they did.thanks

I have 2 opinions:

1) Get a real estate attorney; and,
2) Try to not be so formal when explaining the situation because that makes it difficult to understand the basic facts. When reading your explaination it sounds like you're trying to sound like a lawyer. Just tell the story.

Water for for human consumption (potable) is required by most lenders in order to make a loan.

Most states have agencies that do testing on water samples; that is who I would reply on to determine the fitness of the water.

I would also pull several samples over a period of several days to ensure consistency and to make sure someone didn't pour bleach or something down the well to clear it up temporarily.

If you don't buy this property because of water problems you should get any earnest money deposits back unless there's some issues or contract language we're not aware of.

i didn close the deal on 7 january. i am from canada. like you seee the seller put a uv system after they got the reports the well water was contaminated 35 coliforms per 100 ml. the agreement says thje seller warratns the well water is potable. but the didnt have any proofs.they try to cover the mystake. they was alowed to do that. on the day of closing they come with a water report they get thru the uv system and was acceptable.they try to cheadm my agent try to put on my back a house with contaminated water. now they say i cannot get my money back until the seller sign to release. how is possible?unfaire world we live. thanks

Chlorination or UV treatment of wells is a standard procedure to make the water potable. It is suggested to have all wells tested frequently to make sure you get "good" water. (here, our health dept. does it for free if you bring them the sample). It has not been a deal breaker in any of my transactions; the wells were chlorinated and re-tested and showed no contamination.

we wanted to do a shock chlorination but 2 day before the closing she canceled everything and she brought a clear water sample thru a uv system.not always chlorination can fix the problem. could be soil infected if there was a farm before and when it rain contaminated the well.coliforms bacteria are from animal waste and whatever.she warranted the well water is potable and was not. how this is with the code of ethics is not misleading information.they didnt have proof for that at that time and they find after oops the well is contaminated. will fill a complain against the agents.

cris,
the seller installed a UV system so the water is indeed potable. The problem was discovered and the seller corrected the problem. If the water samples come out clean over several days then you have no cause to breech your contract. I am sure the UV system cam with a warranty so that will protect you while the warranty is in effect. Water problems like this should be tested and handled by professionals, since you are not a professional you should have consulted with one regarding your options for long term treatment. Filing complaints against the agents is pointless as the problem was corrected.

what about code of ethics. misleading

Here's the section of our Code of Ethics that deals with misleading advertising:
"Article 12
REALTORS® shall be careful at all times to present a true picture in their advertising and representations to the public. REALTORS® shall also ensure that their professional status (e.g., broker, appraiser, property manager, etc.) or status as REALTORS® is clearly identifiable in any such advertising. (Amended 1/93)"

and:
"Article 2
REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction. REALTORS® shall not, however, be obligated to discover latent defects in the property, to advise on matters outside the scope of their real estate license, or to disclose facts which are confidential under the scope of agency or non-agency relationships as defined by state law. (Amended 1/00)

Even if the water turned out to be unusable and the seller then corrected the problem there is no evidence their agent knew of the problem before it was discovered and tried to mislead anyone.

I'm assuming the sellers (or someone) was living in the property and drinking the water while it was for sale???

If that's the case then no one knew it was possibly contaminated before it was tested.