Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 244 posts

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#31

Post by colanderman »

abvaw wrote: post #10
paulryanrogers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these people have dementia. It's not a fair negotiation.

Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.

> Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid.

Yes, that's why the houses are considered stolen.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#33

Post by tmm84 »

I wish more older Americans understood how these people really work. My parents live in a neighborhood that has gone down hill through the years. They called up a company who did this kind of home buying. Usual visual inspections and the like went on with a quote being issued. They saw the amount was a little over the remaining mortgage which was less than the market value of the house. They decided to ahead of time wire over $20k in cash from their bank to the mortgage company then move on with the sale. The home buyer company had been notified of the mortgage payment and immediately reissued their quote minus the exact amount transferred to the mortgage company. I wish my parents had told me their plan because businesses communicate more than they used to.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#34

Post by orangepurple »

abvaw wrote: post #2

[flagged]

The revolutionary film Soy Cuba also features this completely bogus line of thinking. The farmer sells over his land because he's broke then goes insane when he's evicted by the "mean capitalist" to whom he sold the farm. Somehow this forms the basis for the revolutionary spirit. People completely miss this. They just see evil capitalists under every stone.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#36

Post by grayhatter »

abvaw wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Your needlessly ridged, hyper literal view of the world is going to be problematic eventually. (lol ask me how I know. )

Making an unfair offer to someone, after lying and/or gaslighting them when they're desperate or vulnerable, and THEN working incredibly hard to prevent them from undoing or recovering from a mistake. Might not meet your strict definition of stealing (still possibly fraud which would count as theft), it's clearly deep into the ethics of stealing.

Which is the authors point.

The thesis isn't a legal one "these people have committed the crime of theft". It's an ethical one, what these people are doing is equivalent to stealing; and a just society would prevent them from getting away with this asshattery.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#38

Post by morkalork »

>One whistleblower tells of how the company uses the surveillance advertising industry to locate elderly people who've broken a hip: "a 60-day countdown to death — and, possibly, a deal."

This statement right here is truly disgusting and real. It doesn't just apply exploitive contracts either. In the case where the victim is deemed incompetent by the government, this is how families have them die. You want to talk about socialist death panels? Family members with power of attorney will turn down surgery knowing full well its not only a death sentence, it's excruciatingly painful the whole time. People show more mercy to their pets.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#39

Post by wilg »

jjulius wrote: post #13
abvaw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts signed by mentally incompetent people are generally invalid. So this article isn't about that. Therefore, when the article says the courts accept the contracts as valid they can't be talking about the contracts signed by the infirm, but the article conflates both things maliciously.

I would suggest that you read the ProPublica article that is the source of the claim, which details a years-long legal battle that then ensued, before you continue. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. The following is literally about a "contract signed by the infirm": >After David learned of the contract, he explained to Evans that his mother had dementia and tried to cancel the sale. Instead of walki…

Not disputing this is fucked up shit, but it's unfortunate there's not a super clear explanation of where the legal system is failing here.

In general, it seems like a huge problem that people who probably are not capable of signing contracts can in fact sign them and have no real recourse for dealing with it. Seems like a good spot for a safety net.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#40

Post by wilg »

grayhatter wrote: post #36
abvaw wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Your needlessly ridged, hyper literal view of the world is going to be problematic eventually. (lol ask me how I know. ) Making an unfair offer to someone, after lying and/or gaslighting them when they're desperate or vulnerable, and THEN working incredibly hard to prevent them from undoing or recovering from a mistake. Might not meet your strict definition of stealing (still possibly fraud which would count as theft…

I'd hope that it is a legal thesis, because it doesn't seem like current law would allow this. The problem may be more in implementation details.
Post reply on HN