Strong doubts regarding the content of the purchase agreement – purchase of property is cancelled
Strong doubts regarding the content of the purchase agreement – purchase of property is cancelled
The parties in a house deal disagree about whether payment for the house has taken place. The purchase deed and cash statement confirming that the payment has been made are signed. However, the seller’s son, who is a party to the case because the seller has passed away, claims that this is not the case and therefore wants to cancel the purchase. The Court of Appeal finds, despite the signed documents, that the content of the agreement and the course of events are so unclear that it has not been shown that any payment was made. The buyer thereby loses the target and the purchase is cancelled.
Two colleagues have agreed that one of them will buy a house from the other. The purchase deed and settlement statement have been signed by both parties at a meeting at a bank, according to the documents the seller must pay SEK 170,000. for the house. However, when it comes to the question of whether payment has taken place or not, the parties do not agree.According to the buyer, the agreement was that the purchase price would be SEK 150,000, which according to his own statement he paid in cash before and during the meeting at the bank. He further claims that an argument broke out at the bank which culminated in the seller and her son, CW, forcing him to sign the documents stating that the purchase price is SEK 170,000 instead. After the meeting, he claims to have paid the remaining SEK 20,000, again in cash.
The seller dies after the meeting and CW therefore takes over her role as the seller’s counterpart. He claims that his mother and the buyer were colleagues and that she therefore trusted that the money would be paid according to the agreement, despite the fact that no purchase price was paid when the documents were signed. The purchase deed states that the purchase may be canceled if one of the parties commits a breach of contract that is not of minor importance to the other party. CW therefore brings an action against the buyer in the District Court (TR) demanding that the purchase be rescinded.
TR states that it is up to the buyer to prove that payment has been made. The evidence he presented is that the seller signed the purchase documents, which according to the law is sufficient to prove that payment has taken place. The burden of proof therefore shifts to CW, who has to show that payment has not taken place. He cites, among other things, account statements from his mother’s bank which show that no deposits have been made corresponding to the sums that the seller claims to have paid for the house. Since the buyer states that he paid in cash, the court’s assessment is, however, that the bank statement does not rule out that the payments were made without being deposited into the seller’s account.Furthermore, CW relies on testimony as evidence, but the court does not consider that these strengthen his case any further.What the court considers speaks to the buyer’s disadvantage is mainly that in some respects he had difficulty explaining exactly how the payments were made. However, this is not considered sufficient to disprove the signed documents, which is why TR declares that CW does not have the right to cancel the purchase. CW later appeals to the Court of Appeal (HovR), which takes the case up for consideration.
HovR shares TR’s assessment that the signed documents should normally be seen as sufficient proof that payment has taken place. The burden of proof thus shifts to CW The court notes that the buyer has provided vague information about how the payment was made and that he cannot show any receipts for his payments to the seller. Furthermore, it is noted that the buyer states that only SEK 150,000. of the agreed SEK 170,000. had been paid at the meeting at the bank. This means that the parties agree that the signed documents are not correct as they state that the entire purchase price was paid at the time of signing. The court also looks at a testimony given by the banker who assisted the parties at the conclusion of the agreement.The banker in question states, among other things, that he strongly discouraged the seller from signing the documents because no money had yet been paid. He further emphasizes that he would have strongly advised against payment in cash if it had been agreed as it could mean problems due to money laundering legislation. The court’s overall assessment is that the evidence in the case raises such strong doubts about the content of the purchase agreement and the liquidation settlement that it can no longer be considered proven that payment took place. The seller has also not submitted any other evidence in the case to further substantiate his claim.