The case concerned the sale of a residential property in Rogaland. Shortly before the property was placed on the market, a man living in a neighbouring house had been sentenced to imprisonment for secretly filming his stepdaughters in the shower and in other situations in the bathroom. He had also been convicted of offences involving material depicting the sexual abuse of children.
The conviction was known within the neighbourhood, but no information about it was provided in connection with the sale of the property. When the buyers became aware of the conviction shortly after the sale, they withdrew from the transaction and purported to terminate the agreement. The sellers were therefore forced to sell the property again and brought legal proceedings seeking compensation for the losses they suffered, including the lower price obtained on the subsequent sale.
Like the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court held that the sellers had no duty to disclose the neighbour’s criminal conviction. Accordingly, the buyers were not entitled to terminate the purchase agreement, and the sellers’ claim for damages succeeded.
The Supreme Court emphasised that information concerning a person’s criminal offences constitutes sensitive personal data. While it was understandable that the buyers reacted negatively to learning of the conviction, purchasers cannot ordinarily expect to receive such information about individuals living in the neighbourhood. According to the Court, a duty of disclosure will arise only where there is a genuine risk of conduct that may have direct consequences for persons connected with the property being sold.
The judgment helps clarify the scope of a seller’s duty of disclosure in residential property transactions.
Source: Supreme Court
Bjørnar Oust
boust@melo.no
+47 480 42 931
