Airborne_Again wrote:
In Sweden you can. The surveyor has his/her own insurance to cover such cases.
But who is suing who? The buyer cannot sue the surveyor. The buyer can only sue the seller. The seller can of course sue the surveyor, but he cannot sue the surveyor for anything more than doing a poor job, and get the money back. If the buyer use a surveyor, that surveyor cannot in any case be legally responsible for faults by the seller, because that surveyor has no contract with the seller.
LeSving wrote:
The buyer cannot sue the surveyor.
Of course (s)he can. The buyer has contracted the surveyor to inspect the house. If the surveyor has missed something that is not considered “hidden defects” (for which the seller is liable), then the buyer can sue the surveyor in which case the surveyor’s insurance will pay. And this is not a theoretical situation – it does happen.
(Btw: I don’t think “surveyor” is the proper word, but I don’t want to change in the middle of a discussion.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
And this is not a theoretical situation – it does happen.
I would call this insurance fraud, and I don’t really see how it can take place, unless the surveyor has much more responsibilities than doing an assessment of the house (a pre buy inspection).
LeSving wrote:
I would call this insurance fraud, and I don’t really see how it can take place, unless the surveyor has much more responsibilities than doing an assessment of the house (a pre buy inspection).
You’ve better not buy a house in Sweden, then. :-) But seriously, where’s the “fraud” part? A “fraud” presumes an intention to deceit. And yes, the only thing done is the “pre-buy inspection”.
Any time somebody sells something with a known defect and doesn’t mention it, there is a clear intention to deceive.
But this is standard human behaviour in selling stuff. I don’t do it and I am sure most here don’t either but…
If this bothers you, don’t buy anything that is secondhand 
Especially not a used car or a plane unless you know the seller and totally trust him/her (a rare case).
Peter wrote:
Any time somebody sells something with a known defect and doesn’t mention it, there is a clear intention to deceive.
Morally, yes, but not necessarily legally.
Morally, yes, but not necessarily legally.
Yes; that is national legal system specific.
Airborne_Again wrote:
And yes, the only thing done is the “pre-buy inspection”.
I of course assume that this “pre-buy inspection” is a bit more professional than a tire kicking exersise. I just don’t see what there should be that should cause the buyer suing the surveyor, unless the surveyor deliberately does something deceitful and illegal. Why would a surveyor do that? I can see only two reasons for this:
Either way, the surveyor cannot do this alone, unless he is much more involved than simply doing a pre-buy check. He must be a broker or something, and who would let the broker do a pre-buy check on behalf of the buyer? Also, you cannot (legally by using an insurance company) insure yourself against the possibility that you will do a crime.
For cars we have several non profit user organisations. They typically do a “pre-buy” on older cars. What is done is simply to go through a standard list of points (brakes, suspension, rust etc).
LeSving wrote:
I just don’t see what there should be that should cause the buyer suing the surveyor, unless the surveyor deliberately does something deceitful and illegal.
Negligence on the part of the surveyor is quite sufficient.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Negligence on the part of the surveyor is quite sufficient.
Well, at most you will get your money for the cost of the pre-buy back. Responsibility and liability follows the money. If the pre-buy is very important to you, then get a second opinion from a second surveyor.
