How does the "as is" phrase affect the disclosure obligation of the home seller?

Under the law of Arizona State, the seller is demanding purchasers to discriminate serious facts that may affect the decision to purchase the property of the purchaser. Thus, in addition to contractual obligations, the seller has a common legal obligation to distribute important facts to buyers that buyers may decide to purchase their property.

Therefore, in addition to directly breaching the terms of most Arizona real estate contracts, the seller's non-disclosure of known serious facts is substantially equivalent to the claim that facts do not exist, and fraud and false indications I will configure it.

In judging whether the problem is important or not, the Arizona state court should consider important matters as long as a reasonable person is important in deciding his choice of action (purchasing property) in the transaction of the matter It is pointed out.

The seller's attempt to rely on limited, incomplete disclosure is similar to the seller's attempt intended to convey property "as is". The Arizona State Court consistently asserts that such provision is invalid and that known serious defects must be disclosed in specificity, not general fantasy terms. For example, In S Development Company v. Pima Capital Management Co., 355 Ariz. Adv. Repub. 24 (August 30, 2001), the seller has extensive use of flexible polybutylene pipes (apparently broken and leaky type tubes when transporting warm water at normal water pressure) within the piping system of two apartments I did not declare. Buyers argued that experienced real estate agents hiring legal lawyers and other experts at the time of dealing claimed privacy of fraud and negligence in two years after closing and the seller abandoned the standard warranty I tried defending based on "as is" phrase. The jury gave the buyer a damages of $ 3,690,000 and the appellate court confirmed.

The court dismissed the allegation that 'sell as is' brought to the seller an obligation to alert buyers to defective plumbing work for which sellers had known piping defects. It was a potential flaw that the buyer did not discover during the due diligence period (there was no opportunity to discover). Under these circumstances, the court is obliged to dispose of defective plumbing work, and even if the court violates the provision of good faith and fair trade obligated by the contract, the court may ask " .

As suggested above, a good rule of thumb for Arizona household sellers is to declare all defects, even materials that are considered for the most obvious buyers. Otherwise it will cost you a lot to defend lawsuits from angry buyers.

In case you purchase a defective house that is not disclosed to you, or if you were accused of selling a house without disclosing a known defect, contact the experienced Arizona real estate attorney as soon as possible.