Oil tank in bayonne.

[Tzvi Balsam]

I am in contract on a 6 Unit with an oil tank that can't be removed for being to close to a utility pole, seller says he won't mind if i back out of contract based on this. (He has another buyer that will take it as is)

The tank was decommissioned legally and he has the paperwork to prove it and I called the city to verify.

I am at a loss do not know how to proceed, I want the deal but I want the tank out what do I do ?

I spoke to a broker earlier that tells me even if it was decommissioned legally it still might be leaking.

[Account Closed]

Originally posted by @Tzvi Balsam:

@Account Closed

Is your advice based on what you know, or based on what you assume?

 LOL, well I did use the word "assume" twice...

But, my argument is based on the info you provided.  Since there is no clear answer, it's reasonable to assume that if a city department that manages the official declaration of oil tanks being decommissioned, saying that it has been legally decommissioned - then it has been decommissioned in a legal manner, approved by the authority over such things.

And if the city is allowing the property to continue to function as a multi-family dwelling that is habitable and legal, and they have not condemned it as being dangerous, etc., then it's reasonable to assume that it is - habitable and legal.

And since you did your due diligence, and asked the city about it, then you have not been negligent, either.

These are the kinds of arguments they teach you in law school.  The law looks at everything in terms of what is "reasonable," and what would a "reasonable" person think, given the facts.

I'm not afraid of arguing such things in court on my own.  What I do, is try to look at the worst case scenario.

And it's my opinion, that in the worst case scenario I can think of - where some tenant says their kid or dog got sick from eating soil on your property, I could argue in court that there would be no reasonable expectation for me to "assume" that the property was unsafe - given the fact that the city gave the okay, and I have the documentation to prove it.

I would be quite happy with that risk.

You can drive yourself crazy over this one, wondering if even if you test the surface soil and find nothing, that there may be some mystery leak buried down in the soil that may somehow rise to the surface, only to end up in the mouth of some dirt-eating child...  And if that kind of worry and/or risk would keep you up at night, then don't buy the property.

It wouldn't stop me from buying it, though.

So, do I KNOW that there isn't a leak on some mystery property?  No.  Would I personally worry about it, given the facts presented or let that keep me from buying it if it was me?  No.

I would "assume" given the facts, that my risk was minimal to non-existent.

You must be careful asking me such questions...if you want short answers :-)