The importance of getting a pre-purchase inspection for a building, in order to have the beginning of evidence in case of a nasty surprise.
The purchase or sale of a residence is an occasional act for most people.
Should a buyer trust their seller or seek the advice of a professional inspector? As for the seller, should they disclose the list of all the work they have done or reveal any known defects?
Thus, buyers, after obtaining a positive pre-purchase inspection report, acquired a residence in 2011, a "great bungalow-castle" as stated by the inspector. Six weeks after the purchase, a water infiltration occurred in the basement. After making openings in the basement wall covering, the buyers discovered water infiltration through cracks in the foundation and the presence of mold in this enclosed space.
The buyers, dismissed in the first instance, appealed their case.
Following a pre-purchase inspection report in 2004, it appears that the sellers were aware of the existence of cracks. They ignored the inspector's recommendations to repair them. Instead, they chose to "apply a new stucco coating to the foundation walls" by concealing the cracks, thus enhancing the appearance of the residence.
The court* concludes that the sellers were aware of the defect and misled the buyers by refusing to disclose their 2004 pre-purchase report. The Court recalls that a "pre-purchase inspection is not an expertise [but rather] a careful and serious examination, although rather quick and not in-depth. In the absence of a revealing clue, the buyer or inspector does not have to open the walls or dig around the foundations."
The Court therefore orders the sellers to pay an amount of over $52,000 to the buyers.
In the presence of a pre-purchase inspection, there is only one standard, which is that of an exempt conduct by a prudent and diligent buyer, which is the case in this matter. Buying a property without obtaining a pre-purchase inspection is equivalent to going to war without weapons.
*C.A. 500-09-024438-145
