Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkrich | Hacker News Reader

But they aren’t. Most home sales in the US follow caveat emptor. If you buy a house from a private seller and then later discover mold in the walls or a crack in the foundation I wish you luck in getting the seller to pay for the repair.

View on HN

As far as builders are concerned, isn't that precisely why they are usually bonded[0] in the US?

[0]: https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-...

They do not carry the as-is, where-is clause you describe unless explicitly. If you can prove prior knowledge they are still liable. Proving the prior is the hard part, but private sales most certainly enforce a good faith clause

New home sales include warranty which is the modern equivalent of the parent’s story. While buying used if you can prove that the seller knew of a mold problem and didn’t disclose it then you have a legal case.

The parent was establishing precedent.

And I'm establishing that the precedent cited doesn't exist, not in modern times anyway. If the argument is that home sellers are punished if they don't protect the buyer and so data sellers should be punished if they don't protect the data, that doesn't really hold up because home sellers aren't typically punished.

Note that I (OP) am referring to builders, not sellers. With respect to the systems that hold FB's data, I'd argue they are more like builders than sellers.

Builder is the key. If you have a house built and the foundation is cracked or mold is growing, you’ll be able to successfully sue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com