Clause in contract?

morg_monster

Hi
We're supposed to be exchanging on our house purchase tomorrow and are just looking through the contracts which the solicitor sent through today, along with the "standard conditions of sale". We just had one question about the variations to the standard conditions in our contract. It says:
"The Sellers duty of disclosure shall related only to encumbrances of which he has actual knowledge, and, in any event, the words "and could not reasonably" in Condition 3.1.2(c) shall be deemed deleted."

Standard Condition 3.1 is:

3.1 Freedom from incumbrances
3.1.1 The seller is selling the property free from incumbrances, other than those mentioned in condition 3.1.2.
3.1.2 The incumbrances subject to which the property is sold are:
(a) those specified in the contract,
(b) those discoverable by inspection of the property before the contract,
(c) those the seller does not and could not reasonably know about,
(d) entries made before the date of the contract in any public register, except those maintained by the Land Registry or its Land Charges Department or by Companies House,
(e) public requirements.

Is this a normal variation ? I mean to me it sounds a bit like if the solicitor or sellers were dodgy they could be trying to hide something!
I do trust our solicitor however, she has been great, so if she doesn't think this clause is a problem...
I don't trust our seller's solicitors though they have been appalling!!

Any reassurances welcome! (or any other advice!)
Thanks

Debt_Free_Chick

As it stands, caluse 3.1.2(c) reads like this ....

There are things the seller knows about and those things are being disclosed.

There are things the seller doesn't know about, but ought to know about .....


It's the fact that seller can only disclose what they actually know. It may be "reasonable" to expect the seller to know other things, but if they don't know them, they can still be held liable because they "should have known them" e.g. the things they don't know are things they've never needed to question!

You have no recourse to any dodgy solicitors who are working for the seller, anyway - your only recourse is to the seller(s) and your own solicitor.

I would be happy with the amendment suggested. I wouldn't want to be liable for things I don't know about and I don't expect others to be either. After all, that is why buyers have a survey - and surveys have been known to identify issues that sellers didn't know about!

HTH - but see what others think

morg_monster

Thanks DFC. That makes a lot of sense and has set our mind at ease.
Anyone got any other advice before we sign our life away ... (so to speak!)

Richard_Webster

It is pretty standard wording, I'm afraid.

morg_monster

Thanks very much Richard. That's what I was hoping for! (like the easy life, me).
Right off to make the CHAPS transfer! Fingers crossed for exchange today! I'm so exciiiiiiiited!