An investor might purchase land for millions of riyals to develop a residential or commercial project, confident in its location, size, and investment value. However, upon applying for a building permit, they might discover that regulatory requirements prohibit the project for which they purchased the land. This problem extends beyond simply thwarting the investment; it raises a crucial legal question: Is the buyer liable for the loss, given its inherent risks in real estate investment, or do they have the right to seek rescission of the sale and compensation from the seller or real estate agent?
The answer begins with distinguishing between land ownership and its suitability for development. The transfer of ownership to the buyer does not necessarily mean the land is suitable for every desired use, as it may be subject to conditions related to the type of activity, building height, setbacks, or population density. There may also be restrictions that prohibit construction entirely or partially. Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between land where construction is not permitted at all and land where regulations allow for residential but not commercial development. Therefore, the inability to implement the project alone is insufficient to establish the seller's liability. It is essential to determine the nature of the restriction, its date of creation, and the terms agreed upon by both parties at the time of the sale.
The seller guarantees against defects that reduce the value of the goods sold.
The Civil Transactions Law addressed some aspects of this problem through provisions regarding warranty against defects in the sold item . Article (338) stipulates that the seller is liable for any defect that diminishes the value or benefit of the sold item, according to its intended purpose as determined by the contract, the nature of the item, or the purpose for which it was intended, even if the seller was unaware of the defect. Accordingly, the existence of a prior regulatory restriction preventing the use of land for the purpose stipulated in the sale may constitute a defect warranting warranty, provided its regulatory conditions are met. This does not mean, however, that every restriction on a building constitutes a defect for which the seller is liable.
However, the seller's liability is not always established. The law excludes from the warranty against defects those that the buyer was aware of at the time of sale or could have discovered through a reasonable person's inspection, unless the seller guaranteed the goods' soundness or intentionally concealed the defect. The mere existence of information about a restriction with an official body is insufficient to establish the possibility of discovery; rather, it must be considered whether accessing and verifying this information falls within the scope of a normal inspection, depending on the circumstances of the transaction. A buyer who knows the land is unsuitable for the activity he intends to undertake, yet purchases it anyway, has a different legal position than someone who received assurances of its suitability for development and then discovered otherwise.
The dispute may extend beyond the provisions regarding warranty against defects to include material error or fraud. If the buyer enters into the contract based on a material error concerning the suitability of the land for a specific use, and the seller was also mistaken, aware of the error, or could have easily discovered it, the buyer may seek to invalidate the contract. However, if the seller deliberately provides misleading information or remains silent to conceal a material restriction that the buyer would not have entered into the contract had they known of it, then the grounds for fraud may be met. The distinction between the two cases is important because a mistake does not necessarily imply deception, while fraud involves misleading conduct that affects the consent of the contracting party. Each has its own conditions and legal consequences.
The importance of contractual obligations
Contractual obligations become even more important when a sales contract includes an explicit promise that the land is suitable for a specific use, and this promise is later found to be false. In such cases, the investigation extends beyond a mere defect in the property itself to encompass the extent to which the seller has breached a separate contractual obligation, potentially leading to claims for rescission or compensation under applicable regulations. Therefore, the wording of the sales contract, prior correspondence, and any guarantees provided by the seller may have a more significant impact on the outcome of the dispute than simply proving that the land is unsuitable for the buyer's envisioned project.
The potential liability is not limited to the seller; the real estate broker may also play a significant role in finalizing the transaction, especially if they presented the land as suitable for a specific project or provided information about its permitted uses. The Real Estate Brokerage Law mandates that brokers exercise due diligence to verify the accuracy of information obtained in accordance with the law's provisions, disclose it when presenting the property, and refrain from providing misleading information. Its implementing regulations also require the brokerage contract with the property owner to include details regarding any restrictions affecting the property's use and any information that may impact its value, if such information exists. If the broker is found to have breached their duties, resulting in harm to the buyer, their liability may arise depending on the nature of the breach and its relation to the harm. This does not, however, imply that the broker is responsible for ensuring the success of the investment project. Furthermore, the broker's deception does not, in itself, invalidate the sale with respect to the seller, unless it is proven that the seller was aware of the deception or should have been aware of it.
One of the issues that could alter the outcome of a dispute is the date of the regulatory restriction. A prohibition predating the sale differs from a new regulatory decision issued after the transfer of ownership and handover of the land. In the former case, the restriction may pertain to the nature or benefit of the property at the time of the contract. In the latter case, the seller cannot be automatically held liable for a regulation that was not in place at the time of handover, unless there is a separate contractual obligation or another legal basis for liability. Therefore, determining the date, content, and scope of the restriction is among the most important elements of proof.
Cases of compensation forfeiture
If the buyer's right is established, the appropriate legal recourse varies depending on the basis of the claim. The buyer may seek to rescind the sale, retain possession of the land and claim the price difference according to the provisions of the defect warranty, and potentially claim compensation if warranted. However, the right to rescind is not absolute; it may be forfeited if the buyer expressly or implicitly accepts the defect. Furthermore, the right to rescind may be forfeited while the buyer retains the right to the price difference in specific cases, including certain actions taken with the property after delivery. The law also permits agreements to modify or waive the defect warranty, but the seller cannot benefit from this waiver if they intentionally concealed the defect. Another appropriate legal avenue may be to seek the annulment of the contract due to error or fraud, or to claim compensation for breach of a separate contractual obligation. These options should not be confused, nor should it be assumed that the inability to develop the property automatically entitles the buyer to a refund of the purchase price and all anticipated profits. Claims for compensation are subject to proving damages and their connection to the cause of liability, as stipulated by the law.
Another potential risk that buyers may overlook is the statutory time limits for filing claims. Article (344) of the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that a claim for warranty against defects is inadmissible after 180 days from the date of delivery of the goods, unless the seller has committed to a longer warranty. Furthermore, the seller cannot invoke this time limit if it is proven that they concealed the defect fraudulently. The law also requires the buyer to notify the seller of the defect within the prescribed period, depending on the nature of the defect and the circumstances of its discovery. As for a claim to annul the contract due to mistake or fraud, Article (79) stipulates that it is inadmissible after one year from the date of becoming aware of the grounds for annulment, with a maximum limit of ten years from the date of the contract. These time limits do not automatically extend to claims based on independent contractual obligations. Moreover, merely changing the legal description of the claim is insufficient to exceed the prescribed time limits if its essence is a claim for warranty against defects. Therefore, delaying the determination of the reason for licensing refusal or failing to take appropriate action may result in the loss of certain avenues for claiming, and simply entering into negotiations with the seller is not sufficient to assume the suspension of the time limits.
Determining the nature and basis of the restriction
Evidence is just as important as the legal text itself. A buyer might claim that the land is unsuitable for construction, when in reality, only the proposed project is prohibited, or developing the land requires amending the plans or fulfilling additional requirements. Therefore, the claim should be based on an official statement specifying the nature, basis, and effective date of the restriction. This should be accompanied by a review of the sales contract, advertisements, correspondence, and appraisal reports. Expert opinion should be sought, if necessary, to determine the restriction's impact on the land's usability and value, and whether this impact existed at the time of sale or arose afterward. Establishing what the seller promised or what the intermediary disclosed, and its influence on the purchase decision, may be crucial in determining liability and selecting the legal basis for the claim.
Purchasing land does not guarantee the success of an investment project, nor does the inability to develop it absolve the seller or intermediary of liability if it is proven that one of them breached a legal or contractual obligation resulting in harm. The distinction between the two cases is not the amount of loss incurred by the investor, but rather the true nature of what was purchased, what was promised, what could have been known, and the reason that prevented the utilization of the land. A loss resulting from an unsuccessful investment decision differs from a loss arising from selling a property that lacks guaranteed benefits or from concealing essential information about it. Liability is determined between these two cases, and the importance of correct legal characterization before claiming termination or compensation is underscored.
@Dr_alkharji
Read also by the author:
Real estate brokerage commission: Does the absence of a written contract prevent claiming it?
Hidden building defects... How to protect your rights before the claim period expires?
Real estate company IPOs: Did the valuations reflect the risks?
A legal analysis of the liquidation of inheritances and partners' properties
