If the seller provides the buyer with incorrect information about the goods, this may result in the goods being considered defective. This follows from Section 18 of the Norwegian Sale of Goods Act.
The seller may also be held liable for incorrect information provided by persons other than the seller, provided that the information was given on behalf of the seller or a previous seller in the chain of distribution. However, the Act makes an exception for situations where the seller neither knew nor ought to have known that the information had been provided.
The seller must also provide complete information
The duty to disclose also applies where the seller fails to provide relevant information to the buyer. The Norwegian Consumer Purchases Act contains a specific provision on this issue in Section 16, but it is generally assumed that the same principle applies under the Sale of Goods Act.
The duty to disclose is, however, limited to information concerning the goods or their intended use that the seller knows or ought to know about. Typically, this concerns information of a negative nature, such as the fact that a vehicle has previously been involved in a collision and suffered damage.
Furthermore, the information must be of a kind that the buyer had reason to expect to receive. Consequently, omissions relating to trivial or insignificant matters will not constitute a defect.
In addition, there is a requirement that “the omission may be assumed to have influenced the purchase.” If the information would have made no difference to the buyer’s decision, the failure to disclose it will not constitute a defect.
The buyer’s duty to inspect
The buyer may not rely on a defect if he or she was aware of the relevant circumstance when entering into the contract. The same applies where the buyer “ought to have been aware of it.” This follows from Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act. Accordingly, it is not necessary that the buyer had actual knowledge of the relevant circumstance.
If the buyer has inspected the goods before the purchase, the general rule is that the buyer cannot subsequently invoke as a defect anything that should have been discovered during that inspection.
The same applies where the buyer, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with the seller’s request to inspect the goods. The buyer may have reasonable grounds for not carrying out an inspection, for example where there is reason to rely on the seller’s expertise, or where an inspection would involve unreasonable expense or waste of time, such as when the goods are located elsewhere.
If the seller has expressly assured or guaranteed that a particular characteristic or quality is present, the buyer will ordinarily not be required to investigate whether this is in fact the case.
