Agreement Of Sale Voetstoots

10:50 pm Uncategorized

While the disclosure document is not a legal requirement, it provides a degree of protection for both buyers and sellers. Subsequently, sellers cannot be criticized for not disclosing to buyers certain latent defects at the time of the closing of the sale. On the other hand, buyers have a good idea of what should be replaced or repaired and whether there could be expensive defective items that could determine whether or not they are offering the property at the market price. Sellers are legally required to disclose the latent property defects they are aware of. In order for the Voetstoots clause to be repealed, buyers must prove that the sellers were aware of the latent defects and deliberately concealed them with the intention of misleading the buyers. Our courts have held that a seller could not invoke the Voetstoots clause if the seller was aware of a latent defect or deliberately concealed it or did not disclose it to mislead the buyer. An exception to this general rule contained in the CPA is that the Voetstoots clause can be used with respect to the private sale of real estate. This is due to the fact that a private sale is generally not a cpA qualification, that the transaction must be done in the “normal business” of the supplier (seller). Therefore, if a party that is not a supplier in the normal course wishes to attack the private sale of its property, it can insert the Voetstoots clause in its sales contract. The voetstoots clause therefore allows the seller to enter into a contract based on the tacit guarantee found in the CPA.

Although the Voetstoots clause is intended to protect the seller, our legislation and South African jurisprudence provide for certain cases where the seller will not be able to raise the Voetstoots clause as a defence in a claim for damages. However, it can be very difficult – and expensive – to prove that sellers have deliberately withheld the information when problems are only discovered after the sale. Most real estate buyers and sellers have a fairly vague idea of what the Voetstoots clause means and how it applies to them. This can lead to litigation if the parties do not recognize the impact of the offer to purchase and other real estate transaction documents. If a seller hides a defect or reveals no known defects, he cannot hide behind the voetstoots clause. A defect is an error that, in its normal use, creates an unacceptable risk of damage. The difference between a latent defect and a lack of patents is – a latent defect is a lack of materials that is not visible after proper examination of the property, and a lack of patents is a defect that can be easily detected by anyone who does a fairly thorough examination. According to the Common Law, a seller is liable to the buyer for all latent defects of the land sold for a period of 3 (three) years after the defects are discovered. If a Voetstoots clause is included in a sales contract, the seller cannot be held liable if the buyer discovers latent defects in the property, unless the buyer can prove that the seller was aware of the latent defect and did not disclose it to the buyer. Why exclude a Voetstoots scheme if the CPA is about a purchase agreement? Under section 55 of the CPA, a buyer has the right to receive property that is appropriate for the purposes for which they are generally intended and which are of good quality, in good condition and without defect. The property must also be usable and durable for a reasonable period of time. The law provides that a seller expressly informs a buyer that the property is being sold in a particular condition and the buyer must expressly accept the property in that condition.

In addition, the CPA has a tacit guarantee of quality and corrective measures for repairs, replacements and refunds.

Comments are closed.