[farmerstan]

See, you have proven your own ignorance with your example!

When you buy a home, even if you waive all contingencies, including a home inspection, if the seller fails to disclose material problems with the house, the sellers will be liable. This liability extends for years past the close of sale.

So you accidentally gave a perfect counter example as to why you are wrong.

[fzeroracer]

That's exactly the problem and why Musk is going to fail at his bid. You can't just claim someone is lying, you have to prove it.

Musk has zero way of proving Twitter is lying about its bot problems. In fact, their bot case is fairly ironclad because as others have mentioned, they've been reporting on it for years and it's been implicitly assumed to be true, incl. by Musk who mentioned it as part of the reason why he was buying Twitter.

In order to prove Twitter is lying, he would need to prove that the past few years of data is falsified, provide his own data and prove his data is more accurate than Twitter.

[Ensorceled]

I think it's worse than that for Musk.

He has to prove that they are lying AND the real number is a material change to the contract worthy of dismissing the contract.

By publicly stating that he thinks the bot problem is worse than they are saying AND that he is buying the company in part to fix the bot problem AND by waiving due diligence, Musk will have difficulty establishing that whatever new "bot number" he finds is actually a material change to the situation.

[gamblor956]

When you buy a home, even if you waive all contingencies, including a home inspection, if the seller fails to disclose material problems with the house, the sellers will be liable. This liability extends for years past the close of sale.

You have proven your own ignorance with your example!

The sellers are liable for some things, in some states, because there are laws that say they are liable for some things.

No such laws generally apply to corporate acquisition agreements.

[farmerstan]

And yet there are federal disclosure laws that you must disclose like lead otherwise you are liable. So again you just proved yourself wrong.

And yes, nothing protects a company from not disclosing material information regardless of “due diligence”, including fraud. So give it up.

[gamblor956]

???

I'm not sure you understood my comment. The point of my comment was that with respect to housing sales, sellers have responsibilities with regards to things not covered by the sales contract because the law says they do. It's so not the point as to whether they are state or federal laws (but on that note, the "federal disclosure laws" specifically only apply to the use of lead-based paint in housing built before 1978, or in other words, to less than 25% of the US housing market).

There are no similar laws that govern corporate acquisitions. If an acquisition agreement does not explicitly (or by incorporation) require a disclosure about "X" , then the lack of disclosure about "X" has absolutely no impact on the resolution of the parties' respective contractual obligations.

[Ensorceled]

There are no “federal you must disclose lead” laws for hostile takeovers.

There are no requirements to disclose anything at all on a hostile take over, that’s why smart people don’t waive due diligence.

[Ensorceled]

> See, you have proven your own ignorance with your example!

Surprise, the basement isn't leaking. You just claimed it was.

This is the problem, you believe Elon is right without proof.

[KerrAvon]

A home sale is often more complicated than that. In some places, you can buy a house “as-is,” meaning that effectively the seller is largely not on the hook as long as they didn’t egregiously misrepresent the condition of the house.

[farmerstan]

Yes but if they don’t disclose problems they are on the hook for it no matter if they sell it as-is.

[Ensorceled]

That's not what "as-is" means, contractually. There may be certain things that, by regulation, must be disclosed (most commonly lead pipes, asbestos, flood plain) but other than that...

In some places, you can also sell a house as "condemned" and then you have no recourse what-so-ever.