Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Legal Implications of Withholding Information

  • 21-08-2012 8:17pm
    #1
    Zynks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭


    I became aware of a possible situation and I am wondering what could happen if the situation went ahead.

    Lets suppose I know someone who is putting an old house in the market that contains hazardous and banned materials - they were legal at the time of construction. The owners know about the issue, but don't volunteer the information on the sales literature nor directly to possible buyers.

    To what legal risks might the sellers be exposing themselves?


Comments

  • #2
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    If the buyers have any sense, they'll probably get a structural survey done as it's an old house. The issues should then show up, and buyers might possibly pull out.


  • #3
    Zynks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭Zynks


    Hopefully! But what if it is not identified during the survey?


  • #4
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    Buyers have 2 years to take an action for misrepresentation.


  • #5
    Zynks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭Zynks


    Thank you! I was hoping that buyers would have an option to pursue. It is only logical, I guess, but looking at some horror stories in the press, I was starting to wonder.


  • #6
    whiteonblu
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭whiteonblu


    Zynks wrote: »
    Thank you! I was hoping that buyers would have an option to pursue. It is only logical, I guess, but looking at some horror stories in the press, I was starting to wonder.
    won't be much good to them if they are ill.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    Zynks wrote: »
    Hopefully! But what if it is not identified during the survey?

    If it's a structural survey, and the guy knows his stuff then the problems will become apparent very quickly. If however, they are not mentioned on the report, and problems later appear, then the buyer has grounds to sue the surveyor/structural engineer and the seller.


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Buyers have 2 years to take an action for misrepresentation.

    12 years surely for a contract under seal?


  • #9
    dats_right
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dats_right


    Lads, your on the wrong track altogether here. Misrepresentation does not arise unless the Vendor is asked in pre-contract enquiries about hazardous materials and gives a reply that he knows to be false, but such a query would not usually be raised as a pre-contract enquiry by a purchaser's solicitors, unless the survey raised this as an issue. The important thing to remeber heres is that the fundamental rule of conveyancing of a second hand house, under the Law Society Contract of Sale, is caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

    There is no duty on the seller to disclose defects in the physical condition of the property, but rather it is the duty of the purchaser to protect himself by making an inspection of the property. This usually would mean carrying out a full structural survey and not merely relying on the lending institution's valuation survey. The purchaser will be on constructive notice of matters which he would or should have discovered by 'reasonable inquiries and inspections'. The onus is therefore very much on the purchaser to discover any defects in the property. The reality is if the physical defects aren't discovered then this is the purchaser's problem.


  • #10
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    dats_right wrote: »
    Lads, your on the wrong track altogether here. Misrepresentation does not arise unless the Vendor is asked in pre-contract enquiries about hazardous materials and gives a reply that he knows to be false, but such a query would not usually be raised as a pre-contract enquiry by a purchaser's solicitors, unless the survey raised this as an issue. The important thing to remeber heres is that the fundamental rule of conveyancing of a second hand house, under the Law Society Contract of Sale, is caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

    There is no duty on the seller to disclose defects in the physical condition of the property, but rather it is the duty of the purchaser to protect himself by making an inspection of the property. This usually would mean carrying out a full structural survey and not merely relying on the lending institution's valuation survey. The purchaser will be on constructive notice of matters which he would or should have discovered by 'reasonable inquiries and inspections'. The onus is therefore very much on the purchaser to discover any defects in the property. The reality is if the physical defects aren't discovered then this is the purchaser's problem.

    Good points. I had assumed that the buyers had asked on the wording of the OP but that probably is not the case.

    My property law is flailing as always. IF you engage someone to spot defects and they dont, there may are other avenues to explore, either way, a solicitor is required here for sure.


  • #11
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    ABajaninCork wrote: »
    [/B]If the buyers have any sense, they'll probably get a structural survey done as it's an old house. The issues should then show up,[/B] and buyers might possibly pull out.
    ABajaninCork wrote: »
    If it's a structural survey, and the guy knows his stuff then the problems will become apparent very quickly. If however, they are not mentioned on the report, and problems later appear, then the buyer has grounds to sue the surveyor/structural engineer and the seller.
    dats_right wrote: »
    Lads, your on the wrong track altogether here. Misrepresentation does not arise unless the Vendor is asked in pre-contract enquiries about hazardous materials and gives a reply that he knows to be false, but such a query would not usually be raised as a pre-contract enquiry by a purchaser's solicitors, unless the survey raised this as an issue. The important thing to remeber heres is that the fundamental rule of conveyancing of a second hand house, under the Law Society Contract of Sale, is caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

    There is no duty on the seller to disclose defects in the physical condition of the property, but rather it is the duty of the purchaser to protect himself by making an inspection of the property. This usually would mean carrying out a full structural survey and not merely relying on the lending institution's valuation survey. The purchaser will be on constructive notice of matters which he would or should have discovered by 'reasonable inquiries and inspections'. The onus is therefore very much on the purchaser to discover any defects in the property. The reality is if the physical defects aren't discovered then this is the purchaser's problem.

    I posted pretty much to this effect. And I agree with Dats Right. Like I say, any buyer with sense will get a full structural survey done as a matter of course, especially as it's on old house.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement