You bought a plot of land, but it turned out that building there is not possible – what should you do?

I won a case in which I defended my client against a claim to return almost EUR 40,000 for a plot of land he had sold!

The buyer must read the notarial agreement he is signing and find out what he is buying. And all the explanations – the “oh, but, however” – sometimes don't help in court?

Does the fact that a plot is sold for more than the market price, that it is assumed to come with a proper building permit, and that almost 10 years later it turns out otherwise, give the right to return the plot to the seller and ask for the amount paid for it to be refunded?

In this case, the dispute concerned forestry land. All the documents permitting construction had been issued, but after the buyer had erected a building, the municipality revoked them and ordered him to demolish everything and restore the construction site. Who is to blame?

The buyer tried to prove in the case that my client had deceived him and essentially misled him when selling the plot. However, in this and similar cases it is crucial to establish what the buyer actually bought. And the notarial transaction was quite clear – a plot was being purchased. The building design and the building permit were not the object of the agreement, and any mistake by the buyer regarding the content of these documents cannot be regarded as material, since these documents were not the subject matter of the disputed agreement.

It is also very important that a mistake can be established only if it concerned essential elements of the transaction that existed at the time the transaction was concluded, and not circumstances that arose after it was concluded. The buyer could at most have been mistaken about the prospects of the transaction, not about the subject matter of the agreement. Why? Because the building permit issued was valid at that time.

 You might say – so what should a buyer do to avoid ending up in such a situation? Look into what he is buying and what he will build there, and whether his plans are in line with the law. And if he can't work it out himself, consult lawyers and other specialists. As for the argument that “I paid more than the market price” – it doesn't hold, because the parties are entitled to agree on whatever price they like.

The claimant also tried to prove in the case that my client had used fraud against him when the transaction was concluded. However, the court rejected these arguments as unfounded, because the evidence we gathered in the case showed the opposite. And fraud itself, in the formation of a party's will, consists in one of the parties to a transaction intentionally misleading the other party (by communicating false information or concealing important circumstances) so that the latter concludes the transaction. In this case I succeeded in defending my client against such accusations.

Then I already know the next question you want to ask me – what should a buyer who has lost the case do? Go to court with a claim against the state institutions – after all, it was not my client who issued the building permit and then revoked it. This should have been done even before this case, but as my practical experience shows, for some reason buyers choose a different path (which at first seems easier than fighting the state) – asking the court to order the seller to return the money. Does it sometimes pay off? Yes, it depends on many circumstances – the court, the chosen “tactics of attack and defence”, etc.

LAWYER