There are still many Purchasers and Sellers who are not certain as to what the “voetstoots” clause covers. In one of the more recent cases involving the “voetstoots” clause Odendaal vs Ferraris, the Court upheld the principal that for the Purchaser to rely on the “voetstoots” clause, the Purchaser must show that the Seller had been fraudulent in that he/she had actual knowledge of the defect and deliberately concealed its existence.
Even in the case where building plans have not been approved and the building does not meet certain statutory requirements, if the Purchaser cannot show that the Seller knew about the defect and deliberately concealed its existence to the extent of fraud that the Seller will be able to rely on the “voetstoots” clause.
It is therefore important that when Purchasers purchase property that they do a comprehensive inspection of the property and request a warrantee from the Seller that any improvements on the property comply with all statutory and building regulations.
The question must be asked whether the Consumer Protection Act has changed the law in this regard and until the Supreme Court of Appeal decides on the matter, one must say that the “voetstoots” clause remains part of our law until we get clarity from the appropriate Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment