|
|
Buyer Beware - Look at information 'for what it is worth' |
It is not generally a valid defence to a claim of misleading conduct to say that the purchaser did not make adequate enquiries to protect his or her own interests. |
Courts have made it clear that to deprive a person of a claim because of a failure to check the accuracy of information presented in effect says, 'You should not have believed me when I misled you'. |
This principle applies in land transactions as it much as it does when buying goods, but it does not mean to say that all small print disclaimers are invalid, and that all information can be relied on fully without the need for independent verification and advice. This is particularly so with information from real estate agents and in agency brochures. If some aspect of a property is crucial to your decision to buy it, you should not simply rely on what you have been told. Instead, discuss it with your solicitor and have it included in the contract. A recent case illustrates the point. |
A few years before selling their vineyard, a couple had a bore sunk on their property. They were told orally at the time that the output was 400 gallons per hour, but the contractor later mistakenly wrote 1,800 gallons per hour on the invoice. When the couple came to sell the land, the bore capacity was not included in the contract of sale, but the contractor's invoice was shown to the purchasers before they decided to buy. |
The owners had also had a brochure prepared through a real estate agent to publicise the sale, claiming that 20 acres were under vines, when the real figure was only a little over 14 acres. The brochure contained, in significantly smaller print, the disclaimer that: 'Whilst every care has been taken in respect of the information contained herein, no warranty is given as to the accuracy and prospective purchasers should rely on their own enquiries'. |
Not surprisingly, the property's shortcomings landed the matter in court, with the purchasers taking action against the contractor and the agent, as well as the vendors. The contractor and the agent, however, were eventually found not liable for the misleading bore capacity and vineyard area claims. |
The contractor was only liable to the person to whom the information was initially given, though this would have been different if he had known that the opinion would be relied on by others. |
The agent was held not to have independent expertise in relation to land area, as a purchaser would reasonably assume that this information had been supplied by another. If an agent does not claim independent expertise, and where it is apparent that the agent is not the author, the agent may 'pass on' information 'for what it is worth'. |
