Humanities desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 18[edit]

US helping Palestinians[edit]

Why does the US provides financial help to the Palestinians? Isn't this in conflict with Israel's interests, which is a US ally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.140.101 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Oslo Accords and International aid to Palestinians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31.4.140.101 -- the U.S. has been giving money to UNRWA since its founding in 1949, back when the word "Palestinian" still often meant "inhabitant of the former British Mandate", and so was applied to both Arabs and Jews. Sometimes the U.S. gives money to the P.A., with the goals of encouraging basic stability in the West Bank, and also preventing the P.A. from being taken over by extremist factions... AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It should also be mentioned that before 1967, the United States denied that it was in any kind of military alliance with Israel, and it was very careful to avoid taking publicly-visible steps which might give the impression that such a military alliance existed. The events of 1967 gave many in the United States such an overwhelmingly negative view of Arabs (since they appeared to combine vicious bloodthirstiness of the highest degree with ineffectual bumbling of the highest degree, along with a willingness to let the Soviet Union extend its sphere of influence into the Middle East), that the taboo against a visible military alliance with Israel was then broken...l AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Camp_David_Accords#Framework_for_Peace_in_the_Middle_East, mainly initiated by US-President Jimmy Carter. --Kharon (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implied warranties[edit]

According to implied warranty, An implied warranty of habitability, generally, is a warranty implied by law that by leasing or buying a residential property, the lessor or seller is promising that the property is suitable to be lived in. The warranty of habitability can be breached if there is no heat, hot water, or other essential services. Moreover, the warranty of habitability is generally not able to be disclaimed in the US.

How is it possible for people to sell dilapidated houses? It's quite common to hear of uninhabitable properties being sold, e.g. to "We Buy Ugly Houses" companies, but if you can't disclaim habitability, it would seem that the purchaser of such a house could change his mind for any reason whatsoever and be successful in suing for relief. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that as long as you are honest about the condition, and are not trying to pretend it is habitable, there is no problem. It is being sold to someone who knows that work will then be necessary to make it habitable. You can sell anything as long as it is clear to both parties exactly what is involved. The implied warranty is a tool to prevent people being tricked into buying something unsuitable, not an absolute ban on selling property that needs work done to make it suitable. Wymspen (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over here^[where?] (and I suppose anywhere else where land for developement is scarce) it's common to sell an old house in disrepair to a buyer who will demolish it and build his own. It's not hard to see how this is more advantageous to the seller than if he had to demolish the house before selling, while the buyer can always haggle to discount the cost of demolition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.210 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This makes complete sense; I guess my lack of legal background just gives me a little uncertainty about the "process". If the contract has a provision saying "The parties agree that the property is conveyed in an uninhabitable state", how is that different from a disclaimer? Maybe a disclaimer is fine print saying "Seller disclaims all implied warranties", in a way that could possibly be construed as not telling the whole truth, while an explicit statement isn't a disclaimer because it's explicit? Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to depend on the specific case (jurisdiction etc). Note in particular there's likely to be a difference between a lease situation and a sale one and our article deals with both. And even a sale situation could involved a new property, perhaps built by a professional builder~~, and~~;or an old property which is clearly run down. You can easily find discussions of the application to specific circumstances e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't give personal details, but I am aware of one case where a landlord who sued for back rent was forced to renovate an apartment badly damaged by a flood caused by his negligence, and of another case where a "summer house" which was intended for use as a beach cottage during the vacation season was rented without heating under the stipulation, determined to be invalid, that space heaters made the structure compatible with code for year-round residence. Both cases ended in summary judgement for the tenant, even though one was in arrears and the other had signed a waiver, before becoming pregnant, regarding the winter habitability. μηδείς (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]