[mythtvnz] Setting up for freeview - idiot's guide please

[Nick Rout]

Steve Hodge wrote:
> On 5/2/07, *Nick Rout* <nick@rout.co.nz <mailto:nick@rout.co.nz>> wrote:
>
>     Hmmmm I just thought of an interesting perspective from a property
>     lawyer's point of view. Sky aerials belong to Sky and Sky tells people
>     to leave them installed when the homeowner moves on. This leads to an
>     expectation that any satellite aerial will just stay. The buyer of the
>     house never owns the Sky aerial, but they can use it for their own Sky
>     connection. This must have helped Sky with penetration over the years.
>
>     However as freeview becomes more prevalent a house buyer is going to
>     have to ask "Is that aerial's Sky's, or yours, and if it's yours is it
>     included in the price, or are you taking it down?" 
>
>
> It'll be listed on the contract just like all the other chattels. If 
> fact they're typically listed now, even though Sky retain ownership.

The standard agreement used for 95% (or more) of house sales in NZ is 
the form jointly promulgated by the NZ Law Society and the Real Estate 
Institute. The very latest version (8th edition 2006) does NOT include 
TV aerials in the list of chattels. The standard list is now "stove, 
fixed floor coverings, blinds, curtains, drapes & light fittings"

Previous versions did list TV aerials. This is a hang over from the old 
analogue aerial that belonged to the householder and which it made sense 
to leave there.

Of course you could argue that a TV aerial isn't a chattel at all, but a 
fixture and therefore part of the house, and therefore passes with the 
house without needing to be specifically mentioned in the contract.

>
>     I see a Fair Go story...person buys house with settlement the night
>     before the World Cup final. They move in and find what they
>     thought was
>     a sky aerial has gone. Naturally they are [disabled/can't leave the
>     terminally sick relative/some other object of pity] and cannot
>     watch it
>     at the pub. The agent, who doesn't know a satellite aerial from a
>     breach
>     of contract has assured the buyer that they will be able to get Sky. 
>
>
> If the contract lists something as staying with the house and that 
> thing is gone then the sellers are in breach. The contract will detail 
> the procedure in those sorts of cases.
>

I was talking more of the situation where there was nothing in the 
contract, and either verbal representations have been made, or 
assumptions have been made.

The assumption most people would make about a Sky aerial is that it 
would stay with the house, but always belongs to Sky. I think most 
people know, however vaguely, that is the case.

However the same assumption cannot be made about a Freeview aerial, 
which belongs to the householder who may expect to take it with him. It 
may not be obvious to a casual observer whether the aerial belongs to 
Sky or the householder.

Of course it may belong to a tenant too, thereby introducing further 
expectations, assumptions and mistakes.

As I saw in someones sig once, "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups".

It will pay to ask, clarify and record what you are told in the agreement.

> Cheers,
> Steve
>