On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:18:30 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 19:34:29 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bruce" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:21:27 -0400, jmcquown >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Maybe in Canada. In the US, until the actual "closing", anyone can back
> >>>out.
> >>
> >> Without penalty, really? What's the meaning of the sale contract they
> >> signed then?
> >
> >They can come up with a reason. Reason people kept backing out on this house
> >was the siding. Or so they claimed. This kind of siding had a recall. We
> >were told that ours was fine and the recall didn't apply. But after buying
> >the house, I think the real reason was that it is flat out not up to code
> >and getting it up to code would cost a fortune. We had a guy who said he
> >would do it for $2,000 so we hired him only to have him walk away saying
> >that he'd been wrong and couldn't do the job for any price. We based what we
> >paid for the house on that. Now we are stuck with a house that likely will
> >never be up to code.
>
> Can't you get a new quote? Or else, never move.

I'm a little curious myself. Clearly, the controlling legal authority
allowed the sale of a non-compliant house. That suggests that, although
not up to current code (and few older houses are--mine certainly isn't),
the house is both livable and salable. I don't see a problem. It'd be
interesting to know what caused the contractor to say he couldn't do
the job for any price.

Cindy Hamilton