PRACTICAL LIFE – Only the description written in the notarial deed of sale counts in determining the conformity of the property with what is planned.
GL with AFP –
In a previous judgment, delivered last December, the Court of Cassation estimated that in the commercial field, the right to complain of a hidden defect could last twenty years. In other words, if you buy a product and find that one of its functions never worked, you have two decades to demand a lower price or question the sale. In the world of real estate, notaries often stand in the way of close-type. However, if a buyer notices that the description of his new property does not match what he sees, he can assert his rights, as the following case illustrates.
All the info on
A couple bought a house whose description in the notarial deed mentions convertible attic space. The buyers weren’t looking for him originally. They had only given a mandate to a real estate agency to search for a house with three bedrooms. Once installed, they discover that the attic cannot, in reality, be converted. These buyers claim compensation from the seller. “The house is smaller than indicated by the description given to the notary and included in his deed of sale”, they justify themselves.
The seller argues that these buyers cannot complain “since the convertible attic was an advantage that they were not originally looking for, according to the mandate given to the real estate agent.” According to him, this is therefore an additional element of comfort and if it does not exist, buyers are still in possession of a house corresponding to what they were looking for.
Read also
- Housing: in case of error on the surface, the notary must not compensate anything
- Admitted neighborhood disturbance is not an acquired right
Everything described must exist
The highest French court considers that one cannot buy a good which does not correspond to the description which is made of it. “Once an additional item has been described, it must exist. It doesn’t matter what they were looking for.”, assure the judges. “The important thing is to compare what they bought, according to the signed agreement, and what was delivered to them. And it is clear that they bought convertible attics that did not exist, which justifies their claim for compensation “, concludes the Court.
On the same subject
The most read articles
Covid-19: the spread of the Omicron variant will end the pandemic phase, estimates the EMA
Jean-Michel Blanquer to teachers: “We do not go on strike against a virus”
Actress Miranda Fryer dies brutally aged 34
VIDEO – Nordahl Lelandais: TF1 unveils new documents
LIVE – Covid-19: more than 360,000 cases in 24 hours