Cyprus Property Forum for Buyers, Sellers & Investors

I am not sure if this will help anyone, but do not see why not, although it will obviously involve more litigation.

Having done a bit of surfing I stumbled across a reference to Cyprus contract law. To be specific sections 18 and 19 of the Contract Law.Cap 149.

Worth a look as the seller can be held liable for misrepresentation and the buyer can be put back to their original position. You have to prove that you did your best to find out any problems, but by hiring a lawyer, whose duties were confirmed by The Cyprus Supreme Court some years ago,it could be argued that you did.

I am not a lawyer.

Any thoughts?

Hi Andy - are you referring to:

“Misrepresentation” defined.

18. “Misrepresentation” includes—
(a) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
(b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
(c) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject to the agreement.


Voidability of agreements without free consent.

19.—
(1) When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
(2) A party to a contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.
(3) If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
(4) A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party on whom such fraud was practised, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.

Power to set aside contract induced by undue influence.

Regards,

Thanks Nigel. That is it.

On the face of it it looks very interesting and potentially very helpful.

The question is what would be the test for the ordinary due diligence "escape" clause?

Hi Andy,

What would be the test for the ordinary due diligence "escape" clause?

I don't think there is one in that text.

However, if I had a lawyer acting on my behalf when I was buying a property, I would expect that lawyer to take as much care and carry out due diligence as if he/she was buying a property for himself/herself. I would expect no less.

Cheers,