Under the LAA permit scheme you require an annual sign-off from an inspector appointed by the LAA.
Yes, and I reckon that will make it pretty hard to sue the seller. The LAA inspector ought to have insurance… it’s the old argument about a dating agency; the more client vetting you do, the more likely you are to get sued if somebody gets murdered, etc. So, chances of Tinder getting sued are exactly zero 
The chance of one of the 1k-2k “intro” agencies getting sued must be significant.
Car modding related posts moved here
Graham wrote:
My ex-parents in law lost out big time on this – they bought a house (a converted barn) from the developer and when problems arose they sought redress under the laws pertaining to new house building, but the developer had structured things such that he sold it to them in a private capacity and not from his development business = no liability.
In Norway this is opposite with houses. The next buyer can sue you for everything erroneous that is not specifically mentioned. This is true for hidden faults as well as “creative” or illegal modifications. A standard sales insurance will cover all of it, and really is necessary to protect the seller. Then the next buyer will have to go head to head with an insurance company also, which is much tougher. Your example would definitely work out just fine for the new owners regardless.
LeSving wrote:
In Norway this is opposite with houses. The next buyer can sue you for everything erroneous that is not specifically mentioned. This is true for hidden faults as well as “creative” or illegal modifications. A standard sales insurance will cover all of it, and really is necessary to protect the seller.
Even things that are “obvious”? In Sweden the seller is only liable for faults that the buyer couldn’t reasonably be expected to find in an inspection of the house.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Even things that are “obvious”
Define obvious? 
The term is both relative and unclear. In principle yes though. A house sold through an agent, as is usually done, is always inspected in detail by the agent. But an agent can’t tear up walls and floors to look for hidden faults and errors. A typical such fault is movement in the foundation due to improper excavation/insulation/drainage and so on. It’s very expensive to fix, and can take years to show. What the results of a case in court will be, is one thing, but the only way for the seller to protect himself is with an insurance.
The seller is responsible in 5 years after the sale, and the responsibility is “objective” as we say (I have no idea if this is the same in English). But it means the seller is responsible even though he didn’t cause the fault, or didn’t know about the fault. The fault can be of any kind, material or legal. The insurance will only cover things that the seller did not cause or did not know about. The case with Graham, would go swift in court. That is a typical “legal error” which the seller both knew about and caused. He would have to pay damage from his own pocket, as no insurance would cover it.
I have to add. The reason it as explained, is because it is explicitly written in law text for purchasing and selling houses. Without that law text, the seller would not be liable for anything, except fraud. At least that is the principle.
G-CGVO – Air Accident Investigation Bureau (aaib) report …
I was interested to note the many comments here on this unfortunate air accident – but none of you mentioned the communication between the pilot and Air Traffic Control (ATC) recorded in the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (aaib) – that although commented in their report as not relevant to the accident itself – nonetheless it’s important to take into account the whole paragraph in context to realise it’s importance ….
… STARTING ON Page twenty (page 20) of the aaib report, worded as follows,
“From a position just west of Popham, the pilot headed south-east, to keep clear of controlled airspace around Southampton Airport. After making radio contact with Solent Radar he was offered a more direct route and transited the eastern edge of the Southampton Control Zone.”
The report continues
“A recording of these exchanges indicated that the aircraft radio functioned normally and that the pilot used correct RTF procedures.”
aaib report continues …
“However, he was told by ATC that the secondary radar indications from his transponder were “fluctuating wildly” and did not show the aircraft at 2,400 ft amsl, as reported.”
The aaib report continues …
“The pilot remarked that the transponder was “brand new” and at the request of ATC he turned off the altitude encoding function (Mode C). He stated that he would have the system checked on the ground.”
Now bearing all that in mind – I’m struggling to understand how that wouldn’t have had an impact on events!!
