sn0m0ns t1_j2cg94h wrote
Reply to comment by Zfusco in Roxborough homeowner says developers destroyed her property while building next door by JClurvesfries
They fold the LLC they are operating under and open a new one. Seriously, construction firms are some of the biggest scumbags I've ever worked for.
Zfusco t1_j2dpku1 wrote
It's still wild to me that cycling through construction LLC's are even legal. I understand the need for them, but you shouldn't be able to create a new one for every development and claim the old one has no money.
They're building what is the average american families largest asset, and the house is supposed to last decades, but a year after construction is done, the company that built it is 100% absolved of any liability, failings, etc. And even if something goes wrong before the year, they'll just claim it's bankrupt and nothing happens to the owner.
Been through it myself nearby, and it put me off new construction in philly for good.
Trafficsigntruther t1_j2dvncr wrote
As opposed to buying used where the minute you sign the paperwork the old owner is 100% absolved.
Zfusco t1_j2e0rpw wrote
Yea, exactly? People pay a premium for new construction because they don't want old home problems, the fact that the builder can't be held responsible for selling a broken product is a problem.
If I buy a TV that doesn't work when I get home, I return it to the store. If my new car is missing the power steering, the dealer fixes it.
If my new house has a bad roof, I need 30 grand and a lawyer to get it solved if I manage to sue the builder before he dissolves his LLC.
Trafficsigntruther t1_j2egcpw wrote
> because they don't want old home problems, the fact that the builder can't be held responsible for selling a broken product is a problem.
They can be if you put that in your contract.
> If I buy a TV that doesn't work when I get home, I return it to the store. If my new car is missing the power steering, the dealer fixes it.
Because that’s what your contract with them requires.
Zfusco t1_j2eiy7p wrote
It's in nearly every contract. The fact that the standard in philly is a 1 year warranty top to bottom is pretty crazy IMO. You shouldn't be building homes if you can only guarantee a foundation and roof for a year, but that's a separate issue altogether.
The problem is that they know enforcing your contract is out of the reach of most people, and that simply managing their books to their advantage means they'll never face any personal repercussions for it even for folks who can afford a lawyer. I was ready to sue my builder, and the reality was that 3 different lawyers all agreed I'd win, and we'd even be able to pierce the corporate veil due to the circumstances of the particular case, and that all said and done it would cost more than the repair would.
Have you been through it? Suing a builder/Developer? Or are you one? I find that people who suggest "just put it in your contract" are generally ignorant to the fact that enforcing a contract costs money, often times a ton of money. Most people aren't exactly flush with spare cash after buying a home.
Trafficsigntruther t1_j2en9tl wrote
> are generally ignorant to the fact that enforcing a contract costs money,
Not really ignorant to it at all. on the business side, but the concept and costs are the same.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments