The Seller Is Not Required to Disclose the Obsolescence of the Property

In a previous post, we noted that the warranty against latent defects is not a guarantee of the absolute integrity of the property sold, nor a general guarantee of proper functioning. In a decision rendered in 2019, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed that the warranty against latent defects is not a guarantee of perfection.

In Thibault v. Lavoie (2019 QCCS 562), a decision that remains relevant today, the Court concluded that the natural wear and aging of an old building — even when they require major repairs — do not constitute a latent defect covered by the legal warranty of quality.

Obsolescence Is Not a Latent Defect

In this case, the buyers had purchased a century-old building without a pre-purchase inspection and alleged the presence of defects affecting the plumbing, electrical system, and masonry.

The Court reminded that:

« Tout bien est soumis aux effets de la dégradation en raison du passage du temps. […] Le passage du temps et la manipulation d’un bien engendrent inévitablement son usure, son vieillissement et sa vétusté. » (paras. 51–53)

Even when the seller declares that the building is in good condition, this does not relieve the buyer of the obligation to be prudent:

« La déclaration générale du vendeur que la maison est en bon état […] ne dispense pas l’acheteur d’un examen soigneux, surtout si la maison est vieille. » (par. 60)

Therefore, a seller is not required to disclose the obsolescence of the property. It is up to the buyer to assess the condition of the premises and adjust their expectations accordingly, taking into account the nature and age of the property:

« Le vendeur n’est pas obligé de dénoncer à son acheteur l’état de vétusté de celui-ci. Il est ainsi du devoir de l’acheteur de le constater par lui-même. » (par. 65)

The Buyer's Duty of Prudence

The Court emphasized the burden placed on the buyer of an older property:

62 […] L'acheteur raisonnable doit être conscient de l'âge de l'immeuble et prévoir les risques associés à l'achat d'une telle propriété.

63 Bien que suivant l'article 1726 C.c.Q., l'acheteur ne serait pas tenu d'avoir recours à un expert en la matière, tel un inspecteur préachat, il peut arriver que l'acheteur n'ait pas la connaissance appropriée pour écarter la possibilité d'un vice.

64 La doctrine nous enseigne ce qui suit quant au passage du temps sur la structure d'un immeuble :

 «L'acheteur «agissant seul n'a pas la connaissance requise pour effectuer et compléter un examen selon la norme de l'acheteur «prudent et diligent» [et] s'il omet de demander de l'aide, il agit de manière négligente».

Une résidence d'un certain âge doit faire l'objet d'un examen plus minutieux de la part d'un acheteur afin de ne pas confondre les détériorations dues à l'usure normale qui n'est pas synonyme de vices cachés. »

A prudent and diligent buyer of an older building, especially one over a century old, must be aware of its age, anticipate the associated risks, and conduct a thorough inspection — even if the seller claims the building is in good condition and that certain repairs have been made.

Otherwise, the buyer may be considered negligent and may lose the right to invoke the legal warranty against latent defects.

In this case, the Court held that the buyers, despite their experience in real estate management, failed to act diligently by neglecting any inspection — despite the advanced age of the building. Their claim against the seller was therefore dismissed.

Conclusion

This decision makes it clear: the mere passage of time can limit the scope of the warranty against latent defects. A seller is not obliged to disclose the natural wear or obsolescence of a property. It is the buyer’s responsibility to remain vigilant, to calibrate expectations to market reality, and to proceed with a thorough inspection when age warrants it.