The Court found that the purpose of the property was disclosed to the plaintiff immediately before the conclusion of the purchase-sale contract at the notary's office. Such a time limit for information clearly violates Article 6.2284 paragraph 2, part 9 of the Civil Code and cannot be considered appropriate. In the light of the circumstances of the case, it should be noted that the facts which had not been disclosed to the plaintiff before the conclusion of the contract at the notary's office were essential for her to decide on the terms of the agreement, since the plaintiff purchased premises for residential purposes. It must be stated that a normally diligent and reasonable person aware of the real situation - that the purpose of the purchased premises from "hotels" to "residential" may not be changed or will be changed only after a very long period after concluding the contract, and that the property cannot be fully used as an apartment - would not have entered into the agreement or if they had, they would have done so on substantially different terms. It should be noted that the defendant's commitment clause of the contract to change the purpose of the premises within two and a half months of the conclusion of the contract also proves the defendant's dishonesty, as the defendant did not provide evidence in its retaliation that it could reasonably expect to fulfill this condition.
Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas