The inspector link posted was based on Canada law and also the inspector failed in gross negligence according to the post by not advising the clients to investigate further.

The inspector could had the buyers sign a disclosure that they were told to get it further reviewed so later when there was an issue the buyers could not sue the inspector.

Buyers get told a lot of things and say "OH don't worry about that it is no big deal. I don't want to pay for that." Then later when something happens they get AMNESIA and said you never told them that. This is why getting disclosures in writing is the best practice.

(The listing for the property clearly stated “hardwood floors thru out lower level”.)

Didn't say according to you 100 PERCENT Hardwood Floors,or Engineered Hardwood,or Laminate Hardwood Floors.

So if you assumed hardwood floors meant 100 percent hardwoods then that was your assumption.

As far as floor registers in my area most of those are on older homes like the one I grew up in. Newer homes have them in the ceiling and not the floor in my area.

Also what happens if the buyer has you pull a register for hardwood and when you pull it up there appears to be hardwood.

Later when the buyer starts pulling carpet after purchase they find a patch job,or damage that is not repairable to the original hardwood??

I will not take on the role of inspector to make a sale. Instead if the buyer uses an inspector and makes a mistake it is not on me the broker.I haven't lived in the house and know nothing of it's conditions,secrets,etc.

Where this can get sticky is if the listing agent practiced dual agency and if it allowed in their state.Then you would have client versus customer duties owed to the buyer.

The reality is we have one side of a story presented here. I am sure there is much more to this transaction than is presented here.

It's like a puzzle with a 100 pieces. If you have only 80 pieces of the puzzle you might think you know what you are looking at. Then you get all the pieces and what you thought was there was something different than before.

No legal advice.

Caveat Emptor (Lat. For let the buyer beware)

In all real estate transaction the aforementioned legal doctrine places the onus on the buyer to do their due diligence and investigate all aspects of their proposed transaction, either personally or through the use of retained experts before signing their offer.

The alternative being for the buyer is to insert the appropriate clauses in their offer relating to contingencies that must be satisfactorily fulfilled prior to completion of the transaction, one being a satisfactory inspection report of the subject property by a qualified home inspector.

The problem, is that generally most home inspections are limited to what is generally referred to as “patent defects”, meaning defects visible to the naked eye and do not relate to “latent defects” that are not visible to the eye.

Since there is some indication that the buyer had focused some attention to the condition of the existing floors and negotiated a sum of money for the resurfacing of same, it is apparent that this was the time at which the issue of “engineered hardwood flooring” should have been raised, failing which the buyer is in a sense the author of his/her own misfortune.

Another issue was perhaps the misplaced reliance on the listing agent in what may have been a "consensual dual agency relationship" and documented as such and thereby requiring the agent to become a neutral party between buyer and seller and prohibited from rendering advise to one party to the detriment of the other party.

In order for a buyer to successfully sue either the seller and/or the agent for misrepresentation and damages, the buyer/plaintiff would have to show through admissible and undeniable evidence that the defendants had prior knowledge which they had purposely concealed.

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information

"Another issue was the misplaced reliance on the listing agent in what may have been a consensual dual agency relationship and documented as such and thereby requiring the agent to become a neutral party between buyer and seller and prohibited from rendering advise to one party to the detriment of the other party."

I disagree with the last part of that statement. We still must disclose any material facts even if that affects one party or the other and still have to look out for the best interest of both parties. In Ontario, under Multiple Representation (Dual Agency) the only things that we are not permitted to disclose are:

• That the Seller may or will accept less than the listed price, unless otherwise instructed in writing by the Seller;
• That the Buyer may or will pay more than the offered price, unless otherwise instructed in writing by the Buyer;
• The motivation of or personal information about the Seller or Buyer, unless otherwise instructed in writing by the party to which the
information applies, or unless failure to disclose would constitute fraudulent, unlawful or unethical practice;
• The price the Buyer should offer or the price the Seller should accept;
• And; the Listing Brokerage shall not disclose to the Buyer the terms of any other offer.

In my area agents do not differentiate between engineered and solid hardwood floors. They are both considered to be hardwood floors. It is similar to roofing material, some shingle roofs have a longer life expectancy than others. This is the detail a buyer needs to investigate when purchasing a home if it is important to them to have a certain building material.

I would never want my client to feel the way you do about their purchase but I don't believe the agent did anything wrong and do not see how you will have any recourse in this matter. Please keep us informed as to how this all works out.

I do it quite often. Its nice to know whats under the carpet. I can look and tell if its wood flooring. I would not know the difference between hardwood and engineered hardwook though. Its all hard wood to me. Some woods are "soft wood" ? Let me hit you in the head with a chunk of soft wood, I bet you would agree its actually hardwood.

Where I come from, the buyer has an absolute right to conduct inspections. They are told to rely upon their inspections, not the MLS, or advice from the Realtors. Do your inspections.

A question to the original poster. You said you feel cheated. What would make you feel better? From your post I don't think you were deliberatly decieved, as you did not ask specifically "Is this real hardwood or engineered hardwood". I think most agents would look at the wood and say hardwood. So what would your soulution be? Cash, replacement of the flooring ?

You can always file a lawsuit. The courts though will look at actual damages, not percieved damages. They would not consider what can be 10 years down the road, only what are your damages at the time of purchase.

I'm not a Lawyer, I just watch them on TV.

MTH

I agree that is what the Act says and what the agent is supposed to do, but not all agents fully comply with what they are supposed to do. (read: The Complaints,Compliance, and Discipline section of RECO).

The KEY is in relation to WHEN AND IF,...the AGENT KNEW.


Therefore there is this, call it a loophole if you will, in that there is no requirement ,that I am aware of that requires a dual agent or any other agent for that matter,to disclose that which he does not know.

The standard defence employed on this issue by such agents and also their sellers in completing their "Seller Property Information Statement" is one of denial, claiming that they simply didn't know and therefore were unable to make full disclosure of all material facts, and that there was no attempt on their part to misrepresent.

Both the agent and seller have a problem, if it can be proven that they had prior knowledge which they intentionally concealed to the detriment of the buyer. (Fraudulent Misrepresentation)

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this
information .

I certainly agree that if we do not know then we can not disclose. The question that also may be asked though is if we "ought to have known". For instance, if you are in a neighborhood where termites are common, then the agent should know that is the case and suggest to a potential buyer that this is something that they should have checked.


And yes, many agents do not properly explain agency or follow the rules in regards to multiple representation. That is probably why it is explained so many times throughout the paperwork....I go over it one time very well and then refer back to it the next 5 or 6 times that it comes up in the paperwork.

I explain a lot of things and get signatures if they deny getting the inspection. Termites should be checked for period in my opinion. They exist in every yard and will infect the property it is just a question of when.

Again buyers could have all kinds of inspections that equal thousands of dollars. My experience is most CHANCE IT and want to have a fall person later on because they don't want to admit they were stupid and cheap.

Brokers and agents who have been in the game along time know this and CYA over and over.

Hardwood used to have a specific meaning (hard vs. soft wood, slow-growing vs. fast growing, oak vs. pine); but, more and more, it seems to be becoming a generic term. Clients and agents both use that term generically, without any regard to whether or not the wood in question is actually a hard variety or even any appreciation for the fact that there is a difference in cost and durability. Engineered wood flooring just takes that progression farther.

Pre-finished wood floors with their curvey, beveled edges may look fantastic right now, but try refinishing all those curvey edges a few years down the road. The fact is that traditional hardwood is more durable than the prefinished version with those beveled edges. Should an agent be expected to point that out to every potential buyer who oohs and ahhs over how great the "hardwood floor" looks? No. The buyer does have a responsibility.

Longevity used to be significant concern when a family would own a house for a lifetime or for generations. Now, such a long-term plan of ownership is much less common, and planned major renovations during ownership is much more common (carpet would never have become an accepted floorcovering if people did not accept the concept of future renovation).

Another example of a longterm issue is the exterior of the house. Solid brick used to be the gold standard of low maintenance exterior. Now, many buyers are reassured by having vinyl covering that they believe they will not have to touch during their ownership. I often see listings that refer to both as being "no maintenance" exteriors. The two methods of construction are not equal in cost or in durability.

The fact is that no listing should use the term "hardwood" unless it is a bona-fide HARD wood, just as no listing should ever say "no maintenance" exterior ("low maintenance" is more truthful, though--again--there is a wide range of low). Standards and word usage change, however.

^agreed.

People comment on my "hardwood" floor in my living room - and I think it's actually spruce. But I'm not listing it for sale though. LOL