3 ms·

In general, yes. In this instance, the buyer was 100% convinced that the property had the service of interest and was told it did by the local monopoly in char

In general, yes. In this instance, the buyer was 100% convinced that the property had the service of interest and was told it did by the local monopoly in charge of providing such service. There was no work to be done before the closing because Comcast won't hook up Internet to a property for someone who isn't the property owner or resident. What you're describing would be a bit like taking out a contingency on the house actually having running water after you physically walked through the house and checked the taps and toilets, just on the off chance that the water is actually not coming from the local muni water source, but instead from an on-property aquifer that a previous owner had tapped and painstakingly routed into the house's internal plumbing, and immediately after closing the sale that aquifer runs dry. Real people don't go to that level of contract detail.

kiscica 12y ago
Well, at least he will know to go to that level of detail next time! Once burned, twice shy. I guess my point is that being "100% convinced that the property had the [feature] of interest" based solely on a phone call is pretty risky when you're talking about a purchase as large as a house and a feature as important (to him) as ability to get broadband internet. I totally understand and sympathize with his plight (I was screwed in basically the way, actually, many years ago, though it was a rental rather than a purchase, and DSL rather than cable, and it did work out in the end in that case too). And the degree to which he was jerked around by Comcast here is almost unreal. I could feel my blood boiling when I read the story. But in the end, I don't think he is going to have any actual legal recourse. He said this was his first home purchase; I imagine next time he will insist on seeing the connection in action next time, or getting that contingency clause in if not! In any case, your analogy doesn't really fit the situation. The seller didn't have cable, or, presumably, any fixed broadband internet service. (That in itself is a bit of a red flag; I'd think most households who can get internet service at a reasonable price these days already have it.) The situation you describe -- well, it's hard to imagine it happening, because the seller would clearly have been legally obligated to disclose that the water was from a well and not municipal, and in any case the buyer would, one hopes, have hired a home inspector who would have noted this (and probably detected issues with the well as w... umm, in addition). But it doesn't sound like the seller hid the fact that there was no internet service currently at the house, which means there's no liability there. So this is more like buying a house with no running water at all, with the knowledge that this is the case, and then getting a verbal promise from the local water company that they'd be able to hook you up. If you were to buy a house under conditions like this, I maintain that you probably would want a contingency clause on installation of the water. And for what it's worth our cable company (not Comcast, but another big one) had absolutely no problem starting the work (once they agreed to do it) for us before we were the owner or resident. If they had, we would simply have made the contingency something like "seller is obligated to have internet installed, for which the buyer will pay, prior to closing."

kiscica 12y ago

Well, at least he will know to go to that level of detail next time! Once burned, twice shy. I guess my point is that being "100% convinced that the property had the [feature] of interest" based solely on a phone call is pretty risky when you're talking about a purchase as large as a house and a feature as important (to him) as ability to get broadband internet. I totally understand and sympathize with his plight (I was screwed in basically the way, actually, many years ago, though it was a rental rather than a purchase, and DSL rather than cable, and it did work out in the end in that case too). And the degree to which he was jerked around by Comcast here is almost unreal. I could feel my blood boiling when I read the story. But in the end, I don't think he is going to have any actual legal recourse. He said this was his first home purchase; I imagine next time he will insist on seeing the connection in action next time, or getting that contingency clause in if not! In any case, your analogy doesn't really fit the situation. The seller didn't have cable, or, presumably, any fixed broadband internet service. (That in itself is a bit of a red flag; I'd think most households who can get internet service at a reasonable price these days already have it.) The situation you describe -- well, it's hard to imagine it happening, because the seller would clearly have been legally obligated to disclose that the water was from a well and not municipal, and in any case the buyer would, one hopes, have hired a home inspector who would have noted this (and probably detected issues with the well as w... umm, in addition). But it doesn't sound like the seller hid the fact that there was no internet service currently at the house, which means there's no liability there. So this is more like buying a house with no running water at all, with the knowledge that this is the case, and then getting a verbal promise from the local water company that they'd be able to hook you up. If you were to buy a house under conditions like this, I maintain that you probably would want a contingency clause on installation of the water. And for what it's worth our cable company (not Comcast, but another big one) had absolutely no problem starting the work (once they agreed to do it) for us before we were the owner or resident. If they had, we would simply have made the contingency something like "seller is obligated to have internet installed, for which the buyer will pay, prior to closing."