Bad dishwasher timing

property.advert

Say nothing, especially if you are skint. If I was buying a 9 years old machine I'd be thinking about replacing it anyway.

missile

mufi wrote: »

The OP has already mentioned that the impending move has just about wiped him/her out financially.

Moral high ground retained by either telling the purchaser and waiting for them to respond (hopefully by saying "don't worry about it, thanks for telling us") or replacing with a second-hand unit.

I am not taking any moral high ground.

Jonah01 wrote: »

To be honest when ....
I want to do the right thing. Its interesting seeing the contrasting views on this.

OP asked would I replace with new and I would ........ simples :A

If OP chooses to replace with second hand, that is good MSE.

If OP feels it is OK to do nothing, fine by me.

However, I don't agree being broke is an acceptable excuse.

mufi

missile wrote: »

I am not taking any moral high ground.

However, I don't agree being broke is an acceptable excuse.

Don't recall saying you were.

OP doesn't need an excuse. Legally, he/she can cheerily depart, leaving the broken dishwasher provided it has not been presented to the vendor as in good working order. Morally, most agree that it should be replaced with a second-hand model, or the vendor advised that it's had its chips. The OP would be going way beyond either his moral or legal obligations if he replaced a nine year old machine with a brand new model.

Davesnave

bigbigmamamoo wrote: »

The couple who sold me my flat had their washing machine breakdown before they moved out. They replaced it with a new one, and left me a note explaining what had happened

Perhaps they felt that you'd paid too much for the flat?

Seriously, I think all the moral attitude stuff here is great, in theory, but often likely to be overridden by a multitude of other feelings both vendor and buyer will have by the time they exchange.

We knew that our buyers got a real bargain when we last sold, so the existence of a dodgy dishwasher wouldn't have featured heavily in our judgements. We did, however, leave them 7 pages of notes on the property listing all its non-apparent features & foibles, including wiring diagrams, plumbing plans etc, which must have saved them a lot of hassle by now.

Similarly, when buying, we really didn't expect a non-working oven to have been replaced, as the vendor had already sold to us rather than accept a substantially higher offer from a gazumper. They threw in a lot more than that anyway.

If only they'd left us a few pages of hard info too about all the changes they made here.

missile

mufi wrote: »

Don't recall saying you were. see here

mufi wrote: »

...Moral high ground retained by ....

OP doesn't need an excuse. Legally, he/she can cheerily depart, leaving the broken dishwasher provided it has not been presented to the vendor as in good working order. Morally, most agree that it should be replaced with a second-hand model, or the vendor advised that it's had its chips. The OP would be going way beyond either his moral or legal obligations if he replaced a nine year old machine with a brand new model.

I simply stated what I would do in response to OPs question. :A

provided it has not been presented to the vendor as in good working order.

Perhaps OP can confirm, DW was included in the sale? Legally this means it is in working order.
I have bought and sold enough houses to know it is not worth the hassle/cost arguing over a broken DW.

mufi

The words 'moral', 'high' and 'ground' were addressed to the OP...

Legally you are wrong, unless it was stated either verbally or in writing that it was in good working order. Caveat emptor applies if the subject was not discussed.

I agree, it certainly is not worth either the OP or us arguing about a broken dishwasher...

thescouselander

mufi wrote: »

Don't recall saying you were.

OP doesn't need an excuse. Legally, he/she can cheerily depart, leaving the broken dishwasher provided it has not been presented to the vendor as in good working order. Morally, most agree that it should be replaced with a second-hand model, or the vendor advised that it's had its chips. The OP would be going way beyond either his moral or legal obligations if he replaced a nine year old machine with a brand new model.

Not true at all. If it was shown as a feature of the house it has to be in working order. We had a similar situation with the electric shower not working when we moved in to a house. We were advised that the vendor was liable for the repairs and yes - we made them pay because we were first time buyers and were pretty skint at the time.

missile

mufi wrote: »

The words 'moral', 'high' and 'ground' were addressed to the OP...

Legally you are wrong, unless it was stated either verbally or in writing that it was in good working order. Caveat emptor applies if the subject was not discussed.

I agree, it certainly is not worth either the OP or us arguing about a broken dishwasher...

That was not clear from your message where you quoted my post.

I am not a lawyer and it certainly appears you are not either?

At last something on which we are agreed.:rotfl:

jackieb

When we moved into our house I would've been glad if the oven wasn't working. It was about 20 years old and disgustingly flithy. We certainly didn't buy the house for the cooker - and we got rid of it as soon as we could replace the kitchen, and even then that was 2 months too long!

I wasn't happy that the shower didn't work though, and the whole frame and garage door fell off on the day we moved in. We saw our solicitor but the sellers gave us no joy (we would have accepted even a £200 goodwill gesture - it was a family of 4 selling it after their father died so wouldn't have cost them much each). Our only option was to take them to the small claims court but we didn't want the bother of doing that, so we ended up with nothing.

dorsoduro

thescouselander wrote: »

Not true at all. If it was shown as a feature of the house it has to be in working order. We had a similar situation with the electric shower not working when we moved in to a house. We were advised that the vendor was liable for the repairs and yes - we made them pay because we were first time buyers and were pretty skint at the time.

Sorry, you're both wrong. Google caveat emptor, which is only overriden in certain circumstances, such as when the vendor has lied/misled. I doubt very much that the fascinating subject of the dishwasher and its workings have been discussed.

I'm with those taking the moral high ground:D, though not to the degree of replacing old with new, but legally the vendor can swan off into the sunset, leaving behind his bu$$ered dishwasher.