Mold in Homes and the Responsibility of Home Sellers to Disclose its Presence when Selling their Home (Annotated Bibliography Sample)

Mold in Homes and the Responsibility of Home Sellers to Disclose its Presence when Selling their Home – An Annotated Bibliography
Name
Institution of Affiliation
Mold in Homes and the Responsibility of Home Sellers to Disclose its Presence when Selling their Home – An Annotated Bibliography
Bush, R. K., Portnoy, J. M., Saxon, A., Terr, A. I., & Wood, R. A. (2006). The medical effects of mold exposure. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 117(2), 326-333. Retrieved from /Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice%20and%20Parameters/Mold-2006.pdf (Journal article; Scholarly)
This journal article is fashioned in the form of a position paper that seeks to address the near controversial issue of molds in homes and their impact on human health. From the article’s onset, the authors concede that the presence of molds in homes has been evidentially linked to a number of illnesses and health complications. “Exposure to certain fungi (molds) can cause human illness.” Key among these illnesses is asthma, sinusitis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis and several allergies. The mechanisms through which the various typologies of molds can be hazardous to humans include the instigation of harmful immune responses, direct infection, and mold byproduct related toxicities. However, although indoor molds have been widely associated with asthma and other allergic reactions, existing scientific evidence is not compelling. Additionally, although allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is a sure indicator of hypersensitivity to fungi (molds), no strong evidence links chronic rhinosinusitis to exposure to molds. Further, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, although rare, can result from mold exposure. With regard to direct infection, host factors rather than environmental exposure pose a significant threat. Finally, mold toxicities that result from inhalation or ingestion of mycotoxins can theoretically cause illnesses but are practically improbable due to dose and threshold related factors in occupational environments. Thus, although exposure to molds can cause illness, the amounts of mold present in occupational environments are often insufficient to cause severe complications.
This article is targeted at medical practitioners who often have to respond to queries and concerns from patients concerning the possibility and severity of mold-induced illnesses. As such, it employs a standard medical/scientific language that suits the target audience. To relay their message, the authors use a logical approach, which uses on existing scientific evidence to support or refute claims about the mold-induced illnesses. The authors endeavor to address most, if not all the salient issues relating to the subject matter of the article, making it a comprehensive and informative piece.
Driscoll, R. (2011, April 28). How long does it take mold to grow? Only science and testing can provide the answer. Cleanfax. Retrieved from /restoration/how-long-does-it-take-mold-to-grow/file=2016Sep_032-045_Tsongas.pdf. (Magazine article; non-scholarly)
The author in this is concerned with one fundamental issue, the time it takes mold to grow on a damp surface. This issue is an important one from the author's perspective because he writes as an individual whose work revolves around water damage mitigation. Apparently, some official documents quoted 24-48 hours as the time it takes mold to grow in a damp environment. However, based on a non-scientific observation, scientific experiments, and literature reviews, mold does not always begin to grow within 24 to 48 hours. In a controlled laboratory environment, it takes about 48 to 72 hours to grow mold. In a non-scientific observation conducted by the author and his peers, it took 18 days to grow visible mold on a damp piece of wall. Moreover, a review of extant literature revealed that scientific experiments that were conducted to establish how long it takes mold to grow found out that it took at least one week for visible mold to grow. Clearly, the article’s main agenda is to inform water damage experts that their widespread belief that mold grows within 24 to 48 hours might not be accurate and as such, they need to reassess their work.
The gist of Driscoll’s article is the duration it takes mold to grow and whether the widely held belief that molds remediation should be commenced with 24 to 48 hours is accurate. The author uses plain language to ensure that his article is understood as clearly as possible. The author employs logic backed by evidence from practical experience, practical observation, and scientific findings to appeal to the readers’ sense of reason. At its conclusion, the article is unfinished, but its point is made; the widely held belief that mold grows within 24 to 48 hours is highly likely to be inaccurate.
Mcgee, D. K. (1987). Potential liability for misrepresentations in residential real estate transactions: Let the broker beware. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 16(1), 127–154. Retrieved from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=ulj (Journal article; scholarly)
This journal article is a legally-oriented piece that seeks to delineate three main issues surrounding the caveat emptor theory as regards its use over the course of history and how perceptions are changing towards it the contemporary U.S. legal environment. In the past, brokers were sufficiently shielded from legal culpability if real estate property they transacted turned out to be defective. However, over time, this is changing, and brokers are no longer safe from buyer instigated litigation. Apparently, a number of areas have emerged upon which courts can base their arguments when holding real estate agents liable for legal action in relation to property sold. These include duty from the perspective of agent-buyer engagement as well as from the perspective of public policy. Other bases upon which courts can permit legal action against brokers are the ethical point of view and business malpractice. These emergent issues have been a source of division among courts across the U.S., but this should not be the case. This state of affairs is because although the failure of brokers to disclose property defects to prospective buyers is deemed as misrepresentation under law, brokers are often unaware of such defects and as such, their non-disclosure is in most cases due to ignorance about such defects. Additionally, the law does not require them to conduct an independent investigation to establish the existence of defects. Thus, legal action against them along these lines is somewhat unfair. Instead, lawmakers should come up with laws to prevent the sale of defective real estate property so that brokers and buyers are protected.
This article delves deep into the legal responsibilities of a real estate broker to their buyers. This matter is delicate because based on existing law, if a broker is shielded from legal responsibility, yet this is the entity a buyer deals with, it would mean that once a buyer ends up with the defective property, they would have no way of seeking justice. Thus, the article dissects a legal gray area that can potentially aid unscrupulous real estate property owners in taking advantage of brokers and unsuspecting property buyers. It outlines the main issues surrounding this subject and gives an honest and objective opinion followed by a befitting recommendation. The author is aware of the article’s relevance to a broad audience and, thus, uses less complicated language to avoid locking anyone out. Finally, the author incorporates some opposing viewpoints alongside his argument to make it clearer.
NAB. The Facts About “Mold Myths.” Retrieved from /cd/pdfs/0304_a.pdf (Organizational Report; non-scholarly)
This brief report from NAB, an insurance industry player, points out that mold does not have the adverse health effects it has been touted to have. The report acknowledges the existence of mold in modern homes due to the manner in which homes are constructed and the construction material used. However, its widespread existence is not a health issue as has been widely claimed by the media. The report refers to such claims as a myth because scientific proof to back the idea that mold is a health hazard is largely lacking. Thus, the mold is just a maintenance issue that only requires the removal of water to sort it out. A few people might show allergic symptoms due to mold, but it is no big deal.
The article approaches the topic of mold and its possible health effects in a forthright manner and explains the reasons behind its existence in modern homes in very simple and clear terms. It effectively debunks what it calls “Mold Myths” that have been propagated by the media. Being a report from the insurance industry, one can easily doubt its sincerity, but the arguments made therein are verifiable from existing literature. It is informative and educative and seeks to quell any anxiety that may result from ignorance among homeowners.
Rosenthal, A. J., & Phillips, R. S. (1996). Tell It Like It Is - Sellers’ Duties of Disclosure in Real Estate Transactions Under California Law. Golden Gate University Law Review, 26(3), 473–496. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1680&context=ggulrev (Law review article; scholarly)
This law review examines the intimate details of disclosure law with regard to real estate. It focuses on the State of California, which according to its authors, was progressive in the development of legislation...