• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
During a buyer's inspection for a house we have under contract, we found a roof leak that was not apparent before we made the offer. (It rained a lot this week and when we went on the inspection we found bubbled paint and a ceiling stain that was not there 6 days ago.

My question is this - if for some crazy reason the seller refused to fix it and we backed out of the contract based on our inspection contingency, are they now required to revise the seller disclosure to disclose this leak? Technically the house was never off the market or delisted from the MLS, so I didn't know if they would have to revise the disclosure.

I can't imagine that they wouldn't agree to fix this leak (if we can find it!) - I would think that in order to sell it to anyone it would have to be repaired.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Huh? Are you saying that as a homeowner selling your house you need to disclose any problem that arose anytime during y... (more)

winter (Feb. 01, 2010 @ 1:48p) |

I can't see listing all the problems that have been fixed--what if you've owned a house 30+ years? Do you tell them abo... (more)

Mithrin (Feb. 01, 2010 @ 5:40p) |

There is a big difference between advertising a house as having a five year old roof and signing a disclosure that they ... (more)

dcwilbur (Feb. 01, 2010 @ 8:01p) |

Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.

Yes, if there is a defect, and they are aware of it.

SouthCity63116 said: if for some crazy reason the seller refused to fix it
They are under no obligation to fix it, pay for it or provide an allowance for it. As a seller, I would never repair a roof.

SigX said: SouthCity63116 said: if for some crazy reason the seller refused to fix it
They are under no obligation to fix it, pay for it or provide an allowance for it. As a seller, I would never repair a roof.

Exactly. They have to tell you about it, but that's the extent of their obligation. Considering that it's a buyer's market, though, I imagine the seller would make a concession or repair.

SigX said: SouthCity63116 said: if for some crazy reason the seller refused to fix it
They are under no obligation to fix it, pay for it or provide an allowance for it. As a seller, I would never repair a roof.


And as a buyer you do NOT want someone else to fix the roof -- you should negotiate a repair allowance for your estimated repair costs and hire the roofer yourself.

The listing agent has an ethical obligation to disclose all known material defects affecting the value of the property to any potential buyer on the Transfer Disclosure Statement.

[...]The buyer market is not only depends on obligation but that makes the poverty to seller[...]

---------------------
Rajveer Singh

Better yet get the previous owner to file an insurance claim and give you the money from the claim to fix the roof. You don't want them doing it because they will get the claim money and find the worst contractor in the world to do it cheaply so they can pocket the difference.

Vmlinux said: Better yet get the previous owner to file an insurance claim and give you the money from the claim to fix the roof. You don't want them doing it because they will get the claim money and find the worst contractor in the world to do it cheaply so they can pocket the difference.
My homeowners policy doesn't just give me a bunch of cash. They ether pay for the repair outright or give me a reduced amount for each repair (with the amount it was reduced indicated). If I choose to fix it myself or not fix it at all, that is all I get. If I show receipts for the later repair, they will reimburse up to the amount held back. The amount they give 'for me to fix it' is good enough for me. I do the work myself, know that it is done to me satisfaction and make out with a little cash.

The reason I mention it is that the sellers insurance may not pay him enough to get it fixed, but the reduced amount. If he just gave that to you, you wouldn't have enough to pay someone else to do the work. Probably not a good idea unless he showed you the insurance paper and made up the difference out of his pocket for the entire claim amount.

During my search for my first house, I got out of a contract when my inspector found a major foundation problem that would have cost over 10k to remedy. In the end, the seller didn't want to pay for it and I got my earnest money back. I mentioned to his agent (as a negotiating tool) that the seller was going to be required to now disclose that defect regardless of whether we made the deal. His agent did not think that was the case. I doubt many people actually disclose what's brought to their attention by a buyer's inspection. Arguably, they could assert that it's a biased assessment, but I think sellers do so at their own peril.

Don't know if this is a valid assumption, but if sellers don't disclose and don't fix, the next buyers may find the same problem and either walk away or ask for money to fix it. So it just become déjà vu, so the sellers might as well work with the first buyer or fix the problem. Listing Agents risk being sued if a buyer finds that they know of a problem and withheld the info, so they likely won't hide major problems they know of. Is this a logic that holds in the real world?

Is the house sold now? Maybe you want to talk to the new owner...

bigdaddycincinnati said: During my search for my first house, I got out of a contract when my inspector found a major foundation problem that would have cost over 10k to remedy. In the end, the seller didn't want to pay for it and I got my earnest money back. I mentioned to his agent (as a negotiating tool) that the seller was going to be required to now disclose that defect regardless of whether we made the deal. His agent did not think that was the case. I doubt many people actually disclose what's brought to their attention by a buyer's inspection. Arguably, they could assert that it's a biased assessment, but I think sellers do so at their own peril.

AcidSpectrum said: Is the house sold now? Maybe you want to talk to the new owner...

bigdaddycincinnati said: During my search for my first house, I got out of a contract when my inspector found a major foundation problem that would have cost over 10k to remedy. In the end, the seller didn't want to pay for it and I got my earnest money back. I mentioned to his agent (as a negotiating tool) that the seller was going to be required to now disclose that defect regardless of whether we made the deal. His agent did not think that was the case. I doubt many people actually disclose what's brought to their attention by a buyer's inspection. Arguably, they could assert that it's a biased assessment, but I think sellers do so at their own peril.


Many years ago and I didn't keep tabs on what happened. I'd be surprised if any later inspector didn't find the issue even if the seller didn't disclose it. I thought briefly about making sure that the seller disclosed it, but any action to ensure that could be risky. For example, if I notified any potential buyer about the problem and caused them not to buy the house, the seller could potentially sue me for tortious interference with a contract. Seller could have paid for an inspection that refuted mine and said I caused him to lose the sale. So I decided to walk away and stay out of it. I suppose I could have kept tabs and notified any purchaser after the fact, but I lost interest in it after a while and found a better house.

The seller is required to notify of any KNOWN problem with the house. If your Real Estate agent sends a copy of your inspection to their real estate agent, the RE agent is now liable to disclose the information, if not he/she could be sued for withholding material information.

Now, in reality, for all that to happen you would need the seller and RE agent to withhold the info, the second inspector not to find it, and the new buyer to contact the original potential buyer and get evidence of the inspection.

However, from my personal experience, before putting an offer on a house my RE agent could tell me if the MLS recorded a prior offer, and if so we requested the report, which they always gave us, so I really don't see how they can hide it. Even if they claim they never saw it, one phone call can verify that. RE agents are a very small world and most of them try to stay civil with each other.

I understand and recognize the sellers are under no obligation to provide an allowance for or repair the leak. However, it's my thought that if we backed out of the contract due to their unwillingness, they would still have to do something with the roof, as the next buyer would just run into the same problem and expect them to fix it as well. If they balk, we'll walk and get our earnest deposit back.

If this were something minimal like wanting the seller to roto-root the sewer line or replace a pane of broken glass in a window, I could see them balking and saying - take it or leave it. But a leaky roof - I would think that anyone would leave it - not just us.

FYI, the roof is in overall good shape - the inspections indicate around 5 years old - but we have been unsuccessful thus far finding the source of the leak - the water must be getting in at another spot and flowing to that point. There's nothing obvious at the spot where the paint is bubbling that would indicate the cause. We have a roofing company coming out to investigate tomorrow - maybe they can find something more than a general inspector can.

I have tried to attach a couple photos of the damage. When we walked the house twice last Saturday this damage was not there, but it rained hard all week and when we did the inspection on Friday, it was clear as day. We did not see any other issues except this one spot.

What makes you think the seller didn't already know about this and didn't disclose it?

Anything is possible - I guess they could have lied on the seller disclosure but I have no way to prove it.

Some people buy houses as is. Seller discloses what he knows and you either accept the problems as yours or work out an agreement for repairs/cash/?? whatever before closing. If you can't work it out you don't have a deal. Just as with a car you really can't know everything that might be wrong. Rain falls you might have a leak. No rain and you might never know it.Even professional inspector don't always find problems or potential problems. Tree in back yard looks good. Falls on house. Now you have to clean up the mess and even find a roof leak. I lost half my shingles to a big wind. Insurance paid for half a roof. I had the whole thing replaced using 7K of my money even though there was no leak. Your seller will either have to fix the problem, sell as is or disclose any known defects. Good luck

Crazytree said: The listing agent has an ethical obligation to disclose all known material defects affecting the value of the property to any potential buyer on the Transfer Disclosure Statement.

"Ethics and Realtors" is the second shortest story ever, after "Can I Trust My Car Dealer?"

Sometimes sellers are strange.

We put an offer on a house that looked beautiful (but was 80 years old) and the inspector found problems with the plumbing, electrical, and foundations. We asked the sellers to fix it and they said absolutely no, so we backed out of the contract. Three weeks later they contact our RE agent telling us they fixed ALL the items on our inspection report, have the receipts to prove them, and would be happy for us to bid the same bid again -- go figure.

We'll see what happens - we are waiting for the roofers' report and will go to them with a request for repair or allowance once we have that.

The sellers are rehabbers, they are not living in the home. It's been on the market for about 70 days, which is about average for homes around this area nowadays.

I guess that depends on the regulations state to state, but in Texas you basically either take what the adjuster says it will take, or you can fight the insurance company with quotes. That's why you never tell the person quoting you to get the repair done what the adjuster told you. If they were going to tell you 7200 and the adjuster told you 8000, the will just increase their quote by 800 dollars .

Crazytree said: The listing agent has an ethical obligation to disclose all known material defects affecting the value of the property to any potential buyer on the Transfer Disclosure Statement.

Real estate agents have ethics?

TheKa said: Crazytree said: The listing agent has an ethical obligation to disclose all known material defects affecting the value of the property to any potential buyer on the Transfer Disclosure Statement.

Real estate agents have ethics?


Yes, there's actually a Realtor code of conduct at:

http://www.realtor.org/mempolweb.nsf/pages/code

I'd be curious to know if you figured out where the leak was coming from. Roof leaks can be tricky. Typically it's either a chimney or in the valley's. If there's nothing apparent, there could be many reasons, badly nailed shingles, rips in the felt paper, etc. They're hard to track down because the leak could start at a higher point, and water will just find it's way down to a point where it could enter the house so the roof could look fine on the other side but the leak started further up.

If done properly, a roof should last a while, but I've seen many roofs where roofers cheated and you know the homeowner won't get the rated life out of the roof. Just saw a new roof recently where there was no starter course for the shingles and they didn't reflash the chimney, just added more tar.

marketingmike said: Crazytree said: The listing agent has an ethical obligation to disclose all known material defects affecting the value of the property to any potential buyer on the Transfer Disclosure Statement.

"Ethics and Realtors" is the second shortest story ever, after "Can I Trust My Car Dealer?"
Actually the story can last several years... I defended a Realtor in 2008... had a trial at the Dept. of Real Estate and then appealed to the Superior Court.

I get so sick and tired of hearing everyone on this forum harp about how unethical (all) Realtors are. Realtors aren't unethical. Unethical people are unethical, it just so happens that some unethical people are Realtors... or lawyers, or doctors, or CPA's, or any other number of professions out there. Flame on.

Now, to address OP's issue:

If I was the listing agent in the OP's case I would tell the sellers that they would indeed have to revise their property condition disclosure to disclose the leak (and any other defects found in the inspection reports) If they refused, I would tell them that that per the Realtor Code of Ethics (yes, these actually do mean something to some Realtors) I would have to supplement their original disclosure with a disclosure of my own regarding the newly found defects and provide a copy to any and all future potential buyers. In fact, they will have to disclose the defects from that point on, even if they make the necessary repairs but don't sell to the original buyer. As a seller, you need to disclose ALL problems that arose during your ownership, even those that have been corrected.

Many posters above are correct that the seller has no obligation to make the repairs unless agreed to via a repair cap in the contract. In all likelihood though, it would be in their best interests to make them (or split them with the buyer in some way) as selling as-is usually results in a much lower sales price for a seller in a case like this. I have seen many sellers be stubborn and refuse to repair things like this and often they end up repairing them anyway and/or netting less with the next buyer, and wish that they'd accepted my advice to take care of things with the first buyer.

As an update, we had a roofing inspector come out in addition to the normal building inspector (I am thinking this is the best $150 I have ever spent!) - and they found that the roof only has 6-12 months of useful life left on it. They said that it had been recently coated with aluminizer, which is a stopgap measure, but that it would still fail very soon. (And in fact, it already did fail - hence the leak!)

On Friday night we submitted the list of things we want the seller to fix - the first of which is that we want a new roof. I am concerned that they will balk at this and we will have to walk from the deal (I could see them saying "This is a rehab, we've sunk enough money into it, I'm not spending another DIME!"), but at the same time, I would pretty much think they would have to fix it if they expect to sell it. With a revised disclosure, any other buyer would see that there was a recent roof leak and would (hopefully!) be smart enough to get their own roofer up there to see what's really going on.

We are going through FHA, so the deal won't fly unless the roof is fixed prior to closing.

We have not heard back from them yet - the terms of our sales contract give us 10 days to come to a resolution on this - which is Monday the 8th.

If the deal falls through I will be bummed that we're out over $600 in inspections, but that's still better than being out $6k for a new roof less than a year after closing!

Cross your fingers that the sellers do the right thing!

SouthCity63116 said: ...at the same time, I would pretty much think they would have to fix it if they expect to sell it.I would not necessarily make that assumption. As long as the roof itself has sufficient useful life left, most of the roof leaks are an easy and relatively inexpensive repair -- it is generally $125 (this is the lowest amount a roofer will charge in our area) to $300 to fix a roof leak. Unlike basement leaks, for instance, roof leaks tend to get repaired very quickly by most owners because they are usually very obvious, annoying and inexpensive, so it's fairly unusual to come across long term roof leak damage. Hence, finding a roof leak will not generally deter any buyers as long, of course, as the roof has sufficient useful life remaining.

By the way, how old is the roof and what type is it? Most people do not bother paying for a roofing inspection because you can usually tell a lot by its age and composition. For instance, the most commonly used roof in our area is a "20 year roof" -- it uses asphalt shingles that last anywhere between 14 to 25 years. If the house you are considering has such a roof and its age falls somewhere in that range, it would be prudent to go in expecting to have to replace the roof without paying for an inspection.

P.S.
I just noticed that the roof is 5 years old. Have the sellers check to see whether it's covered by the manufacturer's warranty, as it is extremely unusual to have a 5 year roof failing and for roofing inspectors to indicate that it has "6 to 12 months" of useful life remaining.

Vmlinux said: Better yet get the previous owner to file an insurance claim and give you the money from the claim to fix the roof.Roof leaks and other types of roof repairs are NEVER covered by homeowner's insurance unless the repairs are necessitated by one of the covered eventualities. In other words, if the repairs are necessitated by hail damage, the repairs/replacement is covered by insurance. If, however, the repairs/replacement are necessitated by old age, then your insurance does not cover it.

SouthCity63116 said: They said that it had been recently coated with aluminizer

How long has the current owner owned the property? Did the sellers disclose this to you? From your posts I assume that they did not. Seems to me like they were hoping to hide the problems with the roof.

What happened to the roof being five years old (posted earlier)? I don't know of many roofs that last only six years.

Well, the current owners (sellers) bought the property as a foreclosure in early 2009 and rehabbed it. The sellers' disclosure stated that they estimated the roof to be 5 years old but they had no documentation of that. The roof inspector estimated it to be closer to 10+ years of age.

The home has a flat roof composed of built up hot tar. These are very common here in St. Louis. From the pictures that I saw (and the corresponding report), there were many cracks in the parapets and most of the flashings were in disrepair.

The report said that the roof was very recently coated with aluminum paint - I'm not sure if this was their way of trying to hide damage or not.

SouthCity63116 said: Well, the current owners (sellers) bought the property as a foreclosure. The sellers' disclosure stated that they estimated the roof to be 5 years old but they had no documentation of that. The roof inspector estimated it to be closer to 10+ years of age.

The home has a flat roof composed of built up hot tar. These are very common here in St. Louis. From the pictures that I saw (and the corresponding report), there were many cracks in the parapets and most of the flashings were in disrepair.

The report said that the roof was very recently coated with aluminum paint - I'm not sure if this was their way of trying to hide damage or not.
Right, as soon as you mentioned aluminizer, I figured that we were talking about a flat roof. It is generally extremely common to use an aluminizer on flat roofs, so the mere fact that one was used does not indicate that the sellers were trying to conceal anything from you. I am not a roofing expert, however, and do not know whether it is common to use it several years into the useful life of a roof.

I still find it really strange that a 10 year old roof only has 6-12 months of useful life left (or that a roofing inspector can estimate this with such a degree of precision). Regardless, at this point you have to very carefully review your contract to see what the sellers are required to do and under what circumstances. It is very possible that under the contract the sellers are required to repair the roof leak or to provide a repair allowance for it but are not required to do a thing about the fact that the roof as at the end of its useful life. If that's the way your contract reads, which would be very common, the sellers' refusal to provide an allowance to replace the entire roof would not allow you to terminate the contract without a penalty. Again, read the contract very carefully to see what it says.

We have multiple outs in the contract - the easiest one is the financing contingency. The roof would not pass an FHA appraisal and w/o financing, the contract terminates w/earnest money refunded.

We also have an out in the inspection contingency - if we are unable to come to a mutual agreement as to how/if the repairs we have requested will be performed within ten days, the contract also terminates with earnest money refunded.

SouthCity63116 said: We have multiple outs in the contract - the easiest one is the financing contingency. The roof would not pass an FHA appraisal and w/o financing, the contract terminates w/earnest money refunded.Why would the roof with the leak repaired cause FHA financing to be denied?

We also have an out in the inspection contingency - if we are unable to come to a mutual agreement as to how/if the repairs we have requested will be performed within ten days, the contract also terminates with earnest money refunded.It sounds like you are just reading a portion of the inspection contingency. The way that repair contingencies are usually worded is to allow the purchaser the right to request repairs with respect to things that are broken or are not functioning as they should. Depending on the wording, the fact that the roof is arguably near the end of its useful life may not allow you to place any demands on the seller, so you wouldn't even reach the later portion of the clause that talks about the way that the buyer's repair demands are handled. Again, take a look at your entire inspection clause to see what your rights are.

geo123 said: Why wouldn't the roof with the leak repaired cause FHA financing to be denied?

I'm only going by what my realtor is saying - he said with a roofing inspection that shows 6-12 months of useful life remaining, it could not go FHA. Maybe he is assuming that the FHA appraiser would find the exact same result?

It sounds like you are just reading a portion of the inspection contingency. The way that repair contingencies are usually worded is to allow the purchaser the right to request repairs with respect to things that are broken or are not functioning as they should. Depending on the wording, the fact that the roof is arguably near the end of its useful life may not allow you to place any demands on the seller, so you wouldn't even reach the later portion of the clause that talks about the way that the buyer's repair demands are handled. Again, take a look at your entire inspection clause to see what your rights are.

Here is the verbiage from the contract:

"If timely Inspection Notice is given, it shall state whether: (1) Buyer is satisfied with all the inspections; (2) Buyer intends that
any unacceptable conditions are to be satisfied by Seller (prior to Closing, unless otherwise specified); or (3) Buyer is terminating the Contract, with the Earnest Money to be returned to Buyer (subject to Section 8). Failure to obtain any inspection shall constitute a waiver and acceptance by Buyer of any condition any inspection may have disclosed.

If this Contract is not terminated as provided above, Seller shall have _____ days (10 days if none stated) after Seller’s receipt of the Inspection Notice (the "Initial Response Period") in which to respond in writing to Buyer’s Inspection Notice. (Note: If Seller fails to timely respond to Buyer’s Inspection Notice, then Seller shall be deemed to have refused to agree to correct any alleged defects, or to provide a monetary adjustment at Closing). The parties shall have an additional _____ days (3 days if none stated) after Buyer’s receipt of Seller’s response to Buyer’s Inspection Notice to reach an agreement in writing as to who will complete and pay for the correction of the defects, or as to a monetary adjustment at Closing in lieu of correction of the defects, or the Contract is to be deemed to be automatically terminated and the Earnest Money shall be returned to Buyer (subject to Section 8); provided, however, that either a written commitment by Seller to correct those items submitted by Buyer for correction during the Inspection Period at Seller’s expense, or a written commitment by Buyer to accept the Property without correction of any unacceptable condition(s) which Buyer originally objected to, shall constitute an "agreement" for purposes of this paragraph, even after earlier negotiation failed to produce an agreement.

Note: A monetary adjustment may affect the terms of Buyer’s loan (e.g., down payment, interest rate and private mortgage insurance). Failure to correct a physical defect may affect Buyer’s ability to obtain any required occupancy permit. A limited warranty or service agreement may also be available for purchase regarding the Property.

Does your contract define what constitutes a "defect?" For instance, a number of locales do provide such a definition in their standard residential form contracts and the definition is worded such that normal wear and tear is not considered a defect as long as the item in question is "functioning in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and is reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was intended."

As for FHA, it does sound like your agent is assuming that the appraiser will come to the same conclusion as the roofing inspector. I would certainly make this argument to the seller but, for your purposes, would not assume that this is a foregone conclusion.

geo123 said: Does your contract define what constitutes a "defect?" For instance, a number of locales do provide such a definition in their standard residential form contracts and the definition is worded such that normal wear and tear is not considered a defect as long as the item in question is "functioning in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and is reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was intended."

This is the only thing I could find in the whole contract (under purchase price), however I take this to mean that the home can have regular wear and tear 'damage' done to it during the time between offer and closing. Defect is not defined anywhere in the inspection contingency or anywhere that I can see:

Seller warrants that the Property will be vacant as of the time of delivery of possession (except for tenants or others in possession pursuant to any lease or other agreement approved pursuant to this Contract), and in its present condition (together with any improvements or repairs required by this Contract), ordinary wear and tear excepted.

SouthCity63116 said: As an update, we had a roofing inspector come out in addition to the normal building inspector - and they found that the roof only has 6-12 months of useful life left on it. They said that it had been recently coated with aluminizer, which is a stopgap measure, but that it would still fail very soon.Is it just me, or does this sound like fearmongering?

OP - if you want the house, adjust your offer to relect what you think the house is worth now that you have more information about the roof. If you don't, move on. If I were selling this house, I'd take another stop-gap measure to fix the leak and put a little paint on the ceiling. I wouldn't disclose anything. From the inspection that you had done, it is pretty clear in my mind that a potential buyer would pretty easily be able to see that the roof is probably an area that would need some work in the near future. It doesn't really seem to me that the seller was or would be hiding anything.

dcwilbur said: ................ OP - if you want the house, adjust your offer to relect what you think the house is worth now that you have more information about the roof. If you don't, move on. If I were selling this house, I'd take another stop-gap measure to fix the leak and put a little paint on the ceiling. I wouldn't disclose anything. From the inspection that you had done, it is pretty clear in my mind that a potential buyer would pretty easily be able to see that the roof is probably an area that would need some work in the near future. It doesn't really seem to me that the seller was or would be hiding anything.


how can you conclude anything about what the seller was, or was not, trying to do based upon a few reported facts in a forum thread?

and is not disclosing anything --- really good advice to throwing around in a web forum

besides the ethics of it --- most people (even if they have a good lawyer lined up) want the absolute minimum risk of being sued (life is too short)

if I was going to live in the house --- I would want to know how much it costs to tear off the old roof and put a commercial quality one on top that I wouldn't need to touch for at least 20 years

Skipping 8 Messages...
Mithrin said: ...Let's take that logic a little bit further; the sellers advertised the house as having a 5 year old roof, admittedly, it was just an estimate. Instead they actually have a roof that is over 10 years old, and has another year of useful life left (assuming that we believe the inspector). I'll also assume that the sellers really thought that the foreclosure they bought last year came with a 4 year old roof, and they weren't being intentionally optimistic in their estimate of the age. At this point, the roof has been discovered to be other than what the buyer and seller thought during negotiations. So if this type of roof normally has a 10 year lifespan, then the buyer should expect a credit of 40% of the cost of replacement (10 year life - 5 years advertised - 1 year remaining = 4/10 of life error in seller estimate). If the type of roof is one that normally has a 20 year life, then the buyer should get a 70% credit (14/20 error in seller estimate).There is a big difference between advertising a house as having a five year old roof and signing a disclosure that they estimated the roof to be 5 years old, especially when they just bought the house a year ago.

Bottom line, the OP should be thankful for the heavy rains, and if he wants the house, he can use the leak as a leverage to get a little better deal. If he doesn't want the house, he can use the leak to try to get out of the deal. It's an old house with an old roof. Frankly, I'd be a little concerned about buying a rehab like this. If the sellers intent was to buy it and flip it, no telling what they might have done on the cheap.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014