However, many structures still have UFFI equipment on site. Currently, there is a disclosure clause in each UFFI real estate contract. However, in many cases, the owners do not realize that their building contains UFFI, which was passed on by former owners. The identification of the UFFI can avoid potential health and safety problems for the contractor and the debts of the owner and architect. We, [ENTER PURCHASERS NAMES], recognize that manufacturers [ENTER NAMES] remove from the purchase and sale agreement the standard clause for formaldehyde urea insulation. We were informed that it had been removed because the suppliers were not satisfied with this presentation, because they did not know whether or not there was formaldehyde urea insulation. In your case, the buyers would have known that your home had UFFI, since it was disclosed in the MLS list and should have been discussed with its agent. They fled very late in the trial, which led me to suspect that they had doubts, and the fact that the UFFI guarantee was not withdrawn from the agreement was used as an excuse to get out of the agreement. www.elliottlawyers.com/real-estate-law/uffi-the-stigma-lives-on-2 In September 2002, Dorothy Gesner purchased a property in Maple Ave. In Lunenburg, N.S., by Donna Ernst for $238,000. The seller had submitted an information statement on the status of the situation, which indicated that there was fibreglass insulation in the walls and ceilings.
In addition, the agreement contained a guarantee that there was no UFFI in the house. It may be time to remove the UFFI clause from real estate purchase contracts. Urea-formaldehyde-foam insulation (UFFI) is now as counter-invasive as it was in December 1980, when the first temporary ban was introduced. The discussion of health issues and issues goes beyond our expertise; We can tell you, however, that there are wide differences of opinion on UFFI. For anyone who disagrees with the UFFI ban, there is someone who agrees. This lack of consent to UFFI covers a wide range of individuals and professions – scientists, doctors, chemists, homeowners, entrepreneurs and lawyers. Nevertheless, I worked for a buyer of a home in which the standard agreement had removed the UFFI clause. The agreement was firm when it came to me, but I was concerned about the lifting of that clause. I asked the agent who forwarded the transaction and was informed that the sellers would simply not confirm that there was no UFFI, and therefore they were not prepared to include that clause. It was also pointed out to me that this fact was brought to the attention of the house inspector and that the inspector confirmed, after his investigation, that there was nothing to suggest that the property contained UFFI. I quickly reviewed the case law in this area and it is clear that the courts have accepted that there is no obvious link between the health effects and the UFFI and that no damages have been awarded.
But it is also clear that there is a stigma caused by the coordinated amount of media attention when there have been health allegations and that there has indeed been a publicly funded withdrawal system. A Decision by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in May casts doubt on the need to maintain this guarantee in purchase and sale contracts today across Canada. UFFI was disgraced in the 1980s because of the resulting health problems. It was eventually banned in Canada (although it is still popular in Europe).