Here’s a new clause that deals with 3D Printer issues in real estate transactions:
"The seller warrants that during the time the seller has owned the property, the property and the buildings and the structures thereon have not been used for the growth or manufacture of any illegal substances."
Actually, I didn’t know that there were 3D Printer problems. But, whatever they are they seem to be solved by inserting this clause.
You know something! That’s the same clause that they used to use for marihuana grow ops. But, now that I look at it, there’s nothing that says anything about marihuana grow ops.
Who knows whether something is illegal. That’s a strange concept. If someone has a permit to produce marihuana, then the building is at the same risk as if it were not permitted. The issue will be the quantity. The issue will be the temperature and the humidity. The issue will be the mould and the length of time.
The bottom line is: has there been any damage to the property? Indeed, was it ever a “grow house”.
Ask the question outright! Why beat around the bush?
If you are acting for a buyer, what kind of protective clause do you need?
Obviously, something better than the 3D Printer clause. If you put that clause in the Offer and something goes wrong, the seller may simply say: “I never had a 3D Printer in the house”.
I don’t use the clause. It’s vague and uncertain. I really don’t know what it means. I thought this clause was drafted to prevent illegal downloading without a copyright, and the subsequent manufacture (printing by use of a new 3D printer) of some plastic part in the basement. Now, you tell me it’s about grow houses! Who would have thought! If that was your point, why not just say it?
Be careful with your drafting.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker