Homebuyer had not lost the right to invoke defects

The case concerned a demand to cancel a contract for the purchase of a home. In the seller’s self-declaration form, they had disclosed that there had previously been mice in the property and that unskilled work had been carried out on the premises. Following the takeover, the buyers hired an expert who discovered mouse damage and defects in the cladding and garage walls.

The buyers sought to cancel the purchase. They were successful in the District Court but not in the Court of Appeal. Since the buyers had received information that gave cause for concern, the Court of Appeal found it reasonable to expect that they either investigate the property further or make reservations in the purchase agreement.

The Supreme Court concluded that there was no basis to reject the defect claims because the buyers had not sufficiently inspected the property. Although the buyers knew there had been mice and unskilled work, they were not aware that this had caused damage. In the Supreme Court’s view, such general risk disclosures do not in themselves trigger a duty to conduct special investigations, which would result in the buyer assuming the risk for hidden defects. Anything else would circumvent the risk allocation intended by the Storting in the 2022 amendment to section 3-9 of the Sale of Property Act, which removed the right to sell a home “as is” to consumers. There were no visible signs of damage that the buyers should have discovered during the ordinary viewing.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment was set aside. In the new hearing, the Court of Appeal must reassess the question of cancellation.

The judgment provides guidance on the scope of the buyer’s duty to investigate under section 3-10 of the Sale of Property Act, and the interpretation and the application of this provision following the 2022 amendment.

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: Real property. Section 3-10 of the Sale of Property Act. The buyer's duty to investigate.

Key paragraphs: 50, 65, 72–73, 79, 113

Justices: Falch, Steinsvik, Hellerslia, Sivertsen, Vang