"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message
...

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.



Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
[over the top sarcasm snipped]


Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
volunteering the info that it had received major repairs.

That's a part of the maintenance record.

Apparently a
lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it.

It is. It's called Caveat Emptor.

Someone
else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
disclosure,

Only with ignorant people who've probably screwed up themselves by their own
ignorance.

so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
any buyer anything" argument.

And when the seller doesn't know, or doesn't think it's relevant, then he's
liable. And the seller continues with his head up his ass.

Ever see those jokes such as not using the hair dryer in the shower? Now you
know the source of that mentality.