Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO VL:2026-23 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding whether a five-year warranty period was exceeded in a property sale environmental liability dispute.

Numero d'incarto KKO VL:2026-23
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal a case concerning a property sale where the buyer alleged the seller was liable for environmental contamination discovered in 2020. The core issue is whether the five-year warranty period under the Property Act was exceeded by the time of the claim. The court decided to allow the appeal to determine if the statutory limitation period applies to environmental remediation costs arising from pre-sale activities.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Property Act 1995, Chapter 2, Section 25, Paragraph 2; The five-year warranty period for environmental liabilities in property sales is calculated from the date of the sale, and claims must be filed within this timeframe unless specific exceptions apply.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
Property Act warranty period environmental contamination liability five-year limitation rule property sale contract terms remediation cost allocation Supreme Court leave to appeal pre-sale environmental activities durata dell'infrazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Property Act 1995, Chapter 2, Section 25, Paragraph 2
Generato dall'IA
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:11
Supreme Court dismisses claim against parent company for pollution costs due to statute of limitations and lack of bad faith by subsidiary.
kko-precedent_2012_1
Supreme Court dismisses claim that seller's soil remediation obligation is binding when survey was fundamentally wrong.
kko-precedent_1998_150
Supreme Court dismisses buyer's claim for fraud relief due to unreasonable delay in reporting the painting's inauthenticity.
kko-precedent_2016_69
Supreme Court dismisses claim for price reduction due to delayed and insufficiently specific defect notifications in a property sale.
market_2007_296
Market Court dismisses claim that public tenderer unfairly ignored lower bid due to unclear pricing terms.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Kiinteistön kaupassa 3.3.2005 oli sovittu, että myyjä vastaa sellaisista ympäristöön

kohdistuvista tutkimis-, puhdistus- ja muista vastaavista kustannuksista, joiden

perusteena on myyjän ennen kauppaa kaupan kohteessa harjoitettu toiminta. Ostaja oli

vuonna 2020 havainnut kiinteistöllä maaperän pilaantumista ja tehnyt siitä

reklamaation myyjälle.

Kysymys siitä, oliko kiinteistön kauppaa koskevalla sopimuksella poikettu maakaaren 2

luvun 25 §:n 2 momentin mukaisesta viiden vuoden reklamaatioajasta.

Valituslupakortti sisältää kuvauksen siitä kysymyksestä, johon liittyen asiassa on

myönnetty valituslupa. Sen sisältö ei sido korkeinta oikeutta eikä rajoita asian

käsittelyä siltä osin kuin valituslupa on myönnetty.