Wow! This would probably not be considered a crime anywhere else in the world!
This is really primitive.
Superstitious idiocy.
My ever-so-learned fellow engineers often go to the temple to pray for the safety of our products. My attempt at convincing them to spend more on R&D and QC falls on deaf ears.
Verily, the ghoul’s ghostly rights are being grossly violated.
I agree. In the US, perhaps you could rescind the sale, return the house and get your money back. I think there’s a good chance you could as that would likely be considered a “material fact” about the house.
But a criminal sentence for non-disclosure during a simple civil sale of property? That’s as dumb as Taiwan’s criminal punishment for adultery.
I blame not just Taiwan’s outdated, paternalistic, ridiculous laws, but the stupid and inexperienced judges and prosecutors. But give them a few more decades, maybe they’ll learn.
I think the sentence was imposed not because the guy lied outrageously but rather to set a legal precedent over the breaking of the contract, as he had already signed on paper that the house was “ghost free”. In this case, I would say it is setting an example, as he could as well have lied about whether radioactive bars were used for the columns, etc… We would not be surprised if someone who sold a house under those conditions -radioactive bars- would be panalized, too. For Taiwanese -and me too- a suicide is a major no-no, just as big as radioactive bars.
What I mean to say is that it is reasonable to penalize him for breaking the terms of the contract or bearing false witness -false statement we call that in Spanish- because it was especifically asked for in the contract. It was one of the conditions or terms.
That they gave it special force because it involved the spiritual word is another matter… 
ps.
I remember there was a real estate agency that was offering 4 guarantees ver house buying: no radioactive bars, no sea salt used, and two other thinsg I cannot remember.
[quote=“Icon”]I think the sentence was imposed not because the guy lied outrageously but rather to set a legal precedent over the breaking of the contract, as he had already signed on paper that the house was “ghost free”. In this case, I would say it is setting an example, as he could as well have lied about whether radioactive bars were used for the columns, etc… We would not be surprised if someone who sold a house under those conditions -radioactive bars- would be panalized, too. For Taiwanese -and me too- a suicide is a major no-no, just as big as radioactive bars.
[/quote]
A major difference being that radioactive bars can give you cancer, and kill you. As for a ghost, if it bothers you, then the house should be returned and the seller forced to give back the money. You, the buyer, suffered no harm, other than inconvenience by having to move again, and maybe some stress. Criminal penalties seem inappropriate in this case. It should be a civil matter.
Here in Taitung, there’s a hotel downtown that’s been closed for nearly a year because one of the guests commited suicide by jumping from the top floor. It’s a total loss - guests can’t stay there because of the ghost, and the owner can’t sell the building, so it sits vacant.
As for me personally, I couldn’t care less if someone died in the house where I live, by means of suicide or whatever. Dead people have never caused me any trouble. It’s always living people who cause trouble.
I wonder if this law also applies to land (rather than just a house). You can at least tear down a house and build a new one (I presume that gets rid of the ghosts), but what if someone dies on your vacant land? You know, there’s probably not an acre of land left in Taiwan where somebody hasn’t died an unnatural death. This island has been inhabited by aborigines for 12,000 years and they fought frequent tribal wars, with plenty of headhunting. Then the Han arrived 400 years ago and killed many aborigines (and each other). Then the Dutch, followed by the Japanese - the newcomers each left their own trail of blood behind. Last but not least, let’s not forget Chiang Kaishek and the 228 Massacre. Do sellers of land have to account for every violent death since the beginning of time, or is there a statute of limitations?
cheers,
DB
Fraud is fraud. People take this really seriously here. Even if someone doesn’t personally, it’s a serious issue because it affects the potential resale of the property.
That was the word I was looking for. Whether a fraud is a civil or penal issue, I leave it to the lawyers. I do like that a precedent has been set, and people who lie about teh house conditions, be it resident ghosts, sea salt, radioactive bars, faulty electric connections, rat infestations, whatever, etc… are penalized as strongly as possible to deter this kind of fraud.
Though I do agree with Dog’s breakfast (what a strange name!) that the living do cause more trouble than the dead…
[quote=“Icon”]
Though I do agree with Dog’s breakfast (what a strange name!) that the living do cause more trouble than the dead…[/quote]
Sure, they’re a lot more fun too though.
Seek from Google, and ye shall find:
phrases.org.uk/meanings/114550.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dog’s_Breakfast
The original meaning and inspiration for my name is the from the first link. The other two are just gravy.
cheers,
DB
this is a case of fraud especially since the new-owner would have been so much out of pocket had he retained and tried to resell the “ghost-house”
if we were to apply the same to the sale of a house that had no foundations (but the agent specifically stated the building was "up-to-code) in our countries, what would that estate agent expect? Just a slap on the wrists?
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”][quote=“Icon”]I think the sentence was imposed not because the guy lied outrageously but rather to set a legal precedent over the breaking of the contract, as he had already signed on paper that the house was “ghost free”. In this case, I would say it is setting an example, as he could as well have lied about whether radioactive bars were used for the columns, etc… We would not be surprised if someone who sold a house under those conditions -radioactive bars- would be panalized, too. For Taiwanese -and me too- a suicide is a major no-no, just as big as radioactive bars.
[/quote]
A major difference being that radioactive bars can give you cancer, and kill you. As for a ghost, if it bothers you, then the house should be returned and the seller forced to give back the money. You, the buyer, suffered no harm, other than inconvenience by having to move again, and maybe some stress. Criminal penalties seem inappropriate in this case. It should be a civil matter.
Here in Taidong, there’s a hotel downtown that’s been closed for nearly a year because one of the guests commited suicide by jumping from the top floor. It’s a total loss - guests can’t stay there because of the ghost, and the owner can’t sell the building, so it sits vacant.
As for me personally, I couldn’t care less if someone died in the house where I live, by means of suicide or whatever. Dead people have never caused me any trouble. It’s always living people who cause trouble.
I wonder if this law also applies to land (rather than just a house). You can at least tear down a house and build a new one (I presume that gets rid of the ghosts), but what if someone dies on your vacant land? You know, there’s probably not an acre of land left in Taiwan where somebody hasn’t died an unnatural death. This island has been inhabited by aborigines for 12,000 years and they fought frequent tribal wars, with plenty of headhunting. Then the Han arrived 400 years ago and killed many aborigines (and each other). Then the Dutch, followed by the Japanese - the newcomers each left their own trail of blood behind. Last but not least, let’s not forget Chiang Kaishek and the 228 Massacre. Do sellers of land have to account for every violent death since the beginning of time, or is there a statute of limitations?[/quote]
Ridiculous! And what’s the statute of limitations on a violent death? And who determined that? Based on what? If it’s 20 years, if a person died horribly 1 day over or under the time period set by the courts, would it really matter to a ghost set on haunting the place of his demise? They should strike the law from the books, to be fair, and make the whole thing a caveat emptor issue, until it can be proven that real damage can be wrought by ghosts. 
This works more on a psychological level. People who believe in ghosts will be uncomfortable, no matter if the Ghostbusters tell them there is nothing there. Their perception is that such things will hurt them, in the same range that shoes outside, clothes hanged overnight, or used stuff also carry the spirits.
In a few words, you are being logical, and this is a “feeling” matter.
I still think full disclosure, whether it is a broken pipe or a gunshot, is necessary to be enforced when you are talking 5 million nts or more. And yes, I do believe that things gather a vibe from people…
Obviously, it’s complete crap, but if the owner lives in a place where potential ghosties will cause him future financial cost, he has to pursue it?
As a sidenote: do these people get really freaked out in Europe because of the age of the buildings? I live in a modern house that was built in the 1930s. When I was a kid, I mostly lived in an early Victorian townhouse, a mill terrace and a prewar semi. That’s because Manchester is a fairly ‘new’ city with most of the buildings made during the industrial revolution, although my best pal’s house was partly Tudor and has a monkhole door in the wall.
There’s virtually zero chance that someone hasn’t died unnaturally in the house where you live in. Suicide and murder is hardly uncommon, the world over, and in a place with such a dense population as metropolitan Taiwan, you’re kidding yourself if you think your environment is untainted.
I smell opportunity. How would I go about finding a “ghost house” to buy? I imagine they would be cheaper no?
Superstitious peasants. When you’re dealing with superstitious ignorant mouthbreathing hicks, you have to consider their feelings. If there were fewer ignorant fuckwits living here, this wouldn’t be a problem. We’re an Asia-Pacific OPERATIONS HUB, goddamit!
[quote=“Lo Bo To”]I smell opportunity. How would I go about finding a “ghost house” to buy? I imagine they would be cheaper no?[/quote]If you just want to live in it, it’s cool. If you plan to ever resell it, not a good idea.
The bottom line is that a majority of people do believe in ghosts on this island, and very few people would want to buy a “haunted” house. This means that if you own one, it’s just about impossible to sell, and thus, it’s worthless.
Near Niaosong, in Kaohsiung, there was a HUGE housing development that began years ago. We are talking dozens of houses that were being built. During the construction, the contractors ran into a mass grave where many corpses were buried. The project was abandoned immediately. Many half-built houses and foundations can be seen there. The contractors and investors lost everything.
Sure you can advocate for the laws to be more dependent of actual proof that ghosts can cause harm to the residents of a haunted house, but that isn’t going to change the fact that no one will want to live there, and that has a direct impact on the value of a house.
Laws can be changed easily, but not the beliefs of an entire nation, however questionable the beliefs may be, and based on that, I think there is grounds for fraud charges.
marboulette
You might ask a realtor. Seriously, you could find a bargain. But resale value will be similarly reduced.
Land next to a cemetery also sells for next to nothing. Don’t expect any Taiwanese to visit you though. A ghost house is probably better - your Taiwanese visitors are unlikely to know that the place is “haunted” unless you tell them (might be a good way to make sure your mother-in-law never visits).
cheers,
DB