House Developer Found Guilty of Concealing Expropriation Information
- A recent case sheds light on deceptive practices by a housing development company (the defendant) aimed at exploiting homebuyers (the plaintiff) through an unfair sales contract. The defendant concealed crucial information regarding the expropriation of land and buildings, infringing upon the rights of consumers purchasing properties for residential purposes.
- In Supreme Court Judgment No. 1808/2018, the Consumer Case Division ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who had entered into a purchase and sale agreement and a land purchase contract with the defendant, the owner of a housing project. Despite the plaintiff paying the full price and ownership being transferred, the defendant fraudulently withheld information about the imminent expropriation of the land and buildings, which the defendant was aware of prior to entering the contract. This fraudulent act rendered the transaction void, leading to the plaintiff’s claim for restitution.
- Addressing the plaintiff’s appeal, the court deliberated on the damages sought, which encompassed various costs incurred directly due to the defendant’s fraudulent conduct. These included telephone installation costs, electricity and water meter insurance fees, mortgage contract expenses, and interest payments to the bank from April 2010 onwards. While both lower courts had ordered the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of the land and buildings along with interest, the plaintiff argued for additional compensation.
- The plaintiff also sought redress for the discrepancy in the price of the land and buildings, which they claimed was exacerbated by the defendant’s deceitful actions. Although the plaintiff only provided the 2008 building construction estimate price as the basis for calculating this difference, the court, considering the circumstances of the case, awarded additional damages.
- The final judgment instructed the defendant to repay the plaintiff the initial purchase amount plus interest, transfer the land and buildings back to the defendant, and compensate for various direct damages, including installation costs, insurance fees, mortgage expenses, and the difference in price, along with interest on the total amount until full payment.
- In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscored the importance of transparency and fairness in contractual agreements, holding the defendant accountable for their fraudulent behavior and ensuring adequate compensation for the plaintiff’s losses.