Both the buyer and the sellers provided expert evidence of assessment and the judge decided that a specific figure was not required, as it was at least $500,000 more than the purchase price. This meant that the buyer was able to charge up to the ceiling in the SPA (i.e. the purchase price). It also meant that there was no basis for the application of the restriction in the GSB, which prevented the first $500,000 of an application from being repayable.  With respect to the authority of these cases, I conclude that the alleged failure of the absence of a professional certificate, coupled with the fact that its issuance was not only a matter of administrative procedure, but required modifications to the building and plans, was not only a defect at the time of the sale, but constituted a sufficiently substantial error. to justify restitution as part of actio empti or actio redhibitoria.  At the beginning of the sale, the auctioneer read the terms of sale. These were identical to the sales contract signed by the applicant immediately after the successful offer worth R2.1 million was submitted. The defendant correctly paid the cash bond of R210,000.00 at the auction. It is customary that, after deducting the advertising payments and the commission of the bidding amount of 135,362,47 R135,362,47, this sum was paid to the defendant. Relevance of exclusion: false fraudulent statements. Any attempt to exclude or limit liability in an English-speaking agreement must be reasonable if it is to be effective. In Witter, the Tribunal found that it was never reasonable to exclude liability in the event of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Any contractual clause or declaration of non-confidence that does not provide that it does not apply in the event of a false fraudulent presentation may lead the court to find that the entire clause is not applicable under English law (whether it is the issue to which the seller intends to apply the exclusion or restriction, does concern a fraudulent element).