新西兰天维网社区

标题: 漏水屋（已经回答） [打印本页]

作者: yuanzhuo 时间: 2013-9-1 18:56:53 标题: 漏水屋（已经回答）

本帖最后由 AMICUS_LAW 于 2013-9-4 13:36 编辑

请问律师我们买了一个漏水屋，这期间屋主骗我们，builder也检查说不漏，你能帮我们告他们吗

作者: onetreehill1 时间: 2013-9-1 22:03:04

可以告Builder

作者: ken454 时间: 2013-9-3 14:25:00

本帖最后由 ken454 于 2013-9-3 14:25 编辑

你可以告屋主，如果你有证据证明他欺骗你。
你也可以告builder，如果你有合同的话。

作者: 灰色夜宵 时间: 2013-9-3 14:31:30

本帖最后由灰色夜宵于 2013-9-3 14:35 编辑

可以索赔我建议你把这两方一起告上去在法庭上三方一起讨论责任归属
不管对方之前是真的不知道还是装的都可以索赔 ( whether innocent or fraudulent)"

根据以下条例房东/builder应该赔偿损失
Contractual Remedies Act 1979
6Damages for misrepresentation
(1)If a party to a contract has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made to him by or on behalf of another party to that contract—
(a)he shall be entitled to damages from that other party in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken; and
(b)he shall not, in the case of a fraudulent misrepresentation, or of an innocent misrepresentation made negligently, be entitled to damages from that other party for deceit or negligence in respect of that misrepresentation.
(2)Notwithstanding anything in section 56 or section 60(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1908, but subject to section 5 of this Act, subsection (1) shall apply to contracts for the sale of goods.
或者你可以用以下条款取消合同
7Cancellation of contract

(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, this section shall have effect in place of the rules of the common law and of equity governing the circumstances in which a party to a contract may rescind it, or treat it as discharged, for misrepresentation or repudiation or breach.

(2)Subject to this Act, a party to a contract may cancel it if, by words or conduct, another party repudiates the contract by making it clear that he does not intend to perform his obligations under it or, as the case may be, to complete such performance.

(3)Subject to this Act, but without prejudice to subsection (2), a party to a contract may cancel it if—
- (a)he has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by or on behalf of another party to that contract; or
- (b)a term in the contract is broken by another party to that contract; or
- (c)it is clear that a term in the contract will be broken by another party to that contract.
(4)Where subsection (3)(a) or subsection (3)(b) or subsection (3)(c) applies, a party may exercise the right to cancel if, and only if,—
- (a)the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed that the truth of the representation or, as the case may require, the performance of the term is essential to him; or
- (b)the effect of the misrepresentation or breach is, or, in the case of an anticipated breach, will be,—
  - (i)substantially to reduce the benefit of the contract to the cancelling party; or
  - (ii)substantially to increase the burden of the cancelling party under the contract; or
  - (iii)in relation to the cancelling party, to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented or contracted for.
(5)A party shall not be entitled to cancel the contract if, with full knowledge of the repudiation or misrepresentation or breach, he has affirmed the contract.

(6)A party who has substantially the same interest under the contract as the party whose act constitutes the repudiation, misrepresentation, or breach may cancel the contract only with the leave of the court.

(7)The court may, in its discretion, on application made for the purpose, grant leave under subsection (6), subject to such terms and conditions as the court thinks fit, if it is satisfied that the granting of such leave is in the interests of justice.

Section 7(3)(b): amended, on 19 December 2002, by section 4 of the Contractual Remedies Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 79).
Section 7(3)(c): amended, on 19 December 2002, by section 4 of the Contractual Remedies Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 79).
Section 7(4)(a): amended, on 19 December 2002, by section 4 of the Contractual Remedies Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 79).

作者: ken454 时间: 2013-9-3 14:39:06

灰色夜宵发表于 2013-9-3 14:31
可以我建议你把这两方一起告上去在法庭上三方一起讨论责任归属

根据以下条例房东/builder应该赔偿损失 ...

我以前看房子的时候，遇到过卖的时候就是漏水房，原房主也只是口头告诉你是漏水房，合同里可没写。

现在LZ最大的麻烦是如何证明原房主的欺骗行为。如果我是原房主，我可以说我没有义务告诉你这是漏水房，或者说我已经口头告诉过你是漏水房，你自愿买的。

作者: 灰色夜宵 时间: 2013-9-3 14:41:41

本帖最后由灰色夜宵于 2013-9-3 14:43 编辑

ken454 发表于 2013-9-3 14:39
我以前看房子的时候，遇到过卖的时候就是漏水房，原房主也只是口头告诉你是漏水房，合同里可没写。

现 ...

是不是漏水房你律师是要在买之前告诉你的有没有告诉过买家律师是可以证明的我不太明白这里买家律师干嘛去了。

作者: 灰色夜宵 时间: 2013-9-3 14:44:09

本帖最后由灰色夜宵于 2013-9-3 14:46 编辑

ken454 发表于 2013-9-3 14:39
我以前看房子的时候，遇到过卖的时候就是漏水房，原房主也只是口头告诉你是漏水房，合同里可没写。

现 ...

不是有builder吗？ builder有义务的我没说不告builder啊屋主确实没义务但是如果他说了那他就从没义务变成有义务了你可以告诉买家你不知道但是不可以欺骗这里楼主没说屋主没告诉他啊他用的词是屋主骗他了

作者: ken454 时间: 2013-9-3 14:52:28

灰色夜宵发表于 2013-9-3 14:41
是不是漏水房你律师是要在买之前告诉你的有没有告诉过买家律师是可以证明的我不太明白这里买家律师干 ...

现在的某些房产律师都是中介给找的，600元，甚至是400元全包。能起什么作用，便宜代表风险大。

我买房时自己找的律师，先签合同，然后按小时收费，最后也仅仅收了我不到3000，这里包括律师找的人检查的房子。比起几十万上百万的房子小3000确实值得。

如果房子没有问题，400元和3000元也许起的效果相同，但是如果房子有问题，那真不一样。

作者: future123 时间: 2013-9-3 17:12:53

LZ要告的难度很大,告谁呢?
中介你可以投诉他,基本告不赢,
builder,人当时检查了是不漏,
没法告的

作者: 灰色夜宵 时间: 2013-9-4 10:08:21

future123 发表于 2013-9-3 17:12
LZ要告的难度很大,告谁呢?
中介你可以投诉他,基本告不赢,
builder,人当时检查了是不漏,

怎么会不能告... builder检查出错怎么没责任呢。。

作者: AMICUS_LAW 时间: 2013-9-4 13:36:36

您好，漏水屋的案件现在一般通过Weathertight homes tribunal 进行诉讼。

你的案子是否符合诉讼利益点，我们需要了解详情后才能做出判断。

建议和我们事务所先预约谈一下，谢谢。

欢迎光临新西兰天维网社区 (http://bbs.skykiwi.com/)