One would think but...there is a thing called the Public Duty Doctrine which essentially says since a municipality functions for the public good if they do something negligent then you can't sue them because you are suing the public for whom they are supposed to be working for. You have to show that you are owed a duty specifically not just that a duty to the public is breached.

Now there are exceptions, specifically where the state government has carved out things people can sue municipalities for or sometimes for lack of enforcement.

Here they could argue that the lack of enforcement was the issue but the government hates setting the precedent that they can be sued for things.

Take this on a smaller scale, builder builds a set of stairs, code says they must have a certain rise over run, the code enforcement officer misses it, someone misjudges the stairs and falls down them. Should the tax payers of the town, presumably where the plaintiff also pays taxes be liable? Should the inspector be personally liable for a mistake done in the course of his regular duties? Part of the logic is that municipalities might just not do inspections to avoid the potential liability therefore making everyone less safe.

I know...it is kinda fucked but...there is a sort of logic to it.

Here we have a number of people who if I am understanding the situation correctly may have a class action suit against the builder not necessarily for not providing water but for lying on the disclosures.

Now if it is found that the Inspector was doing something shady like helping the builder commit fraud then the inspector would be personally liable for something there as committing fraud is not a part of his regular duties. Basically if they were negligent then oh well but if it was intended then he is in trouble.

The thing here is that I find it crazy that they did inspections on all of these houses without turning on the water once or that if the inspector and builder were committing some sort of large scale fraud that they thought they could get away with it.

Gets popcorn

This is gonna be interesting.

Seconding this. Lawyer here also (not yet barred in NH, also not legal advice) but the wells not functioning should have been in the disclosures.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2015/title-xlviii/chapter-477/section-477-4-c

The builder may be in deep shit here.

Looks Yeah...he's not with us...

Gift cards under a $100 do not expire in NH. Maintenance fees are a thing though unfortunately.

https://www.unionleader.com/nh/about_nh/new-hampshires-unique-gift-certificate-law-protects-consumers/article_20565014-8844-5c28-9102-155dda7813ee.html

As per usual the only leg Republicans can stand on is "Whataboutisms".

I think much of this is debatable but regardless my original question remains unanswered.

Can you give one policy initiative from the Republicans that helps the average American?

You could make the argument for the First Step Act as it was introduced by a Republican and signed by a Republican president but it is widely considered a bipartisan act and was only opposed by Republicans so that's a pretty soft argument.

Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people.

As per usual the only leg Republicans can stand on is "Whataboutisms".

I think much of this is debatable but regardless my original question remains unanswered.

Can you give one policy initiative from the Republicans that helps the average American?

You could make the argument for the First Step Act as it was introduced by a Republican and signed by a Republican president but it is widely considered a bipartisan act and was only opposed by Republicans so that's a pretty soft argument.

Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people.

As per usual the only leg Republicans can stand on is "Whataboutisms".

I think much of this is debatable but regardless my original question remains unanswered.

Can you give one policy initiative from the Republicans that helps the average American?

You could make the argument for the First Step Act as it was introduced by a Republican and signed by a Republican president but it is widely considered a bipartisan act and was only opposed by Republicans so that's a pretty soft argument.

Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people.

Please explain how it is unconstitutional.

Please give me one Republican policy from the past 30 years that has benefited the average American.

I may be a fool but I certainly am not young and all I have seen them do over my lifetime is get us into unnecessary wars, blow the only budget surplus in my lifetime, and support a wannabe dictator who tried to overthrow the government.

Do I think Democrats are perfect? Not by a long shot but I would prefer misguided with good intentions over war mongering and tax breaks for the wealthy.