Is a Hold Harmless Agreement Sufficient?
More specifically, is a Hold Harmless Agreement sufficient to protect the seller, the owner, or the listing agent of a property that is in need of significant repairs, repairs without which someone potentially could be seriously injured in the property?
As an analogy of sorts, consider the following scenario:
The City Zoo has a lion exhibit and to give the visitors a more realistic approach, they will allow them to enter the lion's den, provided that they sign a Hold Harmless Agreement, whereby they recognize the dangers and, of course, they agree to not hold the Zoo legally responsible for anything that may happen while in the lion's den.
This is absolutely ridiculous and would never happen. If it did happen, then, in my opinion, the Hold Harmless Agreement would have no legal validity.
Is a Hold Harmless Agreement for a property that has conditions which could potentially cause serious personal injury as useless as one that would be used to allow someone to go into the lion's den?
Or, as an alternative, at least, from the standpoint of a listing agent, would it be reasonable to refuse the listing unless the concerns which could lead to bodily harm were fixed?
Comments(4)