Duty to disclose when selling a home

The seller knows something, the buyer does not: who bears the risk?

When buying a home, two duties collide: the seller must disclose what he knows, and the buyer must carry out his own investigation. In August 2025 the District Court of Gelderland held that a seller had stayed silent about years of noise nuisance from the neighbours. Even so, the buyers did not get their purchase price back — because of the wrong claim.

Buyers paid €1.21 million for a country house next to a metalworking business

In August 2021 a couple bought a detached country house with stables and a riding arena for €1,210,000. On the adjoining industrial plot sat a sole trader in waste and metal processing: sorting and dumping rubble, metal and glass with a shovel loader. Shortly after completion, in the spring of 2022, the buyers heard the loud noise.

What they did not know: the seller had suffered from it himself for years. From 2019 onwards he had complained to the municipality and the environmental agency, filed an enforcement request, lodged an objection and even served the agency with notice of default. He was aware that the neighbouring business had applied for a permit to expand. Shortly before the sale he messaged the neighbour: "could you not sort with the shovel this Thursday?!!". At the hearing he stated that he did so to present the house "as positively as possible". The standard disclosure questionnaire said nothing about the nuisance. The estate agent knew nothing of it.

The buyers, by contrast, had done their homework: a walk around the neighbourhood, enquiries with the estate agent and a neighbour, and a check of the zoning plan. They were only able to retrieve the enforcement file after completion, through a freedom-of-information request. They claimed rescission of the sale and repayment of the full purchase price, plus compensation for the increase in value and improvement costs — together more than €1.4 million.

No hidden defect, but a breach of the duty to disclose

The District Court of Gelderland split the case into two questions. First: was the house non-conforming within the meaning of Section 7:17 DCC? The lower limit there is "normal use" (cf. Supreme Court, 23 December 2005). The noise measurements showed that the exceedances of the peak level were marginal and incidental — the highest was 2.3 dB in 2020 and 1.9 dB in 2023 — and that the municipality considered enforcement disproportionate. No structural nuisance, so no hidden defect. Rescission failed.

But that did not get the seller off the hook. Separately from the conformity question, the seller is under a duty to disclose: good faith (Section 6:2 DCC) requires him to disclose, before the sale, what he knows and what matters to the buyer (Section 6:228(1)(b) DCC). That duty protects precisely the careless buyer: the seller's duty to disclose may not too readily be set aside in favour of the buyer's duty to investigate (Supreme Court, 10 April 1998, Offringa).

The seller knew of the nuisance, the enforcement process and the permit application; the buyer could not reasonably have found this out. By keeping silent, the seller acted unlawfully (Section 6:162 DCC) and the sale was, moreover, voidable for mistake. That the duty to disclose does not always prevail over the duty to investigate — for instance where the buyer already had sufficient reason to doubt (Supreme Court, 14 November 2008, Van Dalfsen/Kampen) — did not lessen the reproach here: the seller had actively kept the nuisance out of sight.

What does this mean for buyers and sellers of a home?

The outcome is bitter for the buyers: they were proved right on every main point — both mistake and tort were established — and yet they did not get their purchase price back. They had claimed rescission and de facto reversal, but that route was closed off (no non-conformity), and an adjustment of the effects under Section 6:230(2) DCC serves to restore the contractual balance, not to unwind the whole sale. They had also not claimed re-transfer of the house. In the end only €1,364.88 in investigation costs was awarded, with referral to separate damages proceedings.

For the seller the point is clear: known, non-apparent particulars — nuisance, an enforcement file, a permit application nearby — belong in the questionnaire, even where a defect does not (quite) amount to non-conformity in law. Actively concealing (having the shovel stopped during the viewing) only increases the reproach and may even amount to fraud (Section 3:44 DCC). For the buyer the point is: investigation protects, but it does not remove the seller's duty to disclose — and the claim you choose determines whether being right also means winning. A buyer who does not want the sale to stand must invoke annulment and offer to re-transfer; a buyer who wants damages must claim them. An "as is" clause shifts the risk of defects, but does not erase the seller's duty to disclose. Where a physical defect surfaces only after completion, the periods and the notice of default largely decide the outcome: see hidden defects after buying a Dutch home.

Frequently asked questions

Must a seller disclose everything he knows about the house?

No, but he must disclose what he knows and what matters to the buyer and which the buyer cannot reasonably find out himself. Think of nuisance, legal proceedings or plans in the vicinity. If in doubt whether something is relevant, that argues for disclosing it: concealment can lead to mistake, tort or even fraud.

Does the buyer's own investigation protect the buyer or the seller?

Investigation mainly protects the buyer: it prevents a defect from being left at his expense. But it does not release the seller from his duty to disclose. A seller who knows relevant information and conceals it cannot, in principle, rely on the argument that the buyer should have investigated more thoroughly.

Why did the buyers not get their money back despite the concealment?

Because they chose the wrong remedy. Without non-conformity, rescission was not available, and an adjustment of the effects merely restores the balance — it does not unwind the sale. They had not claimed annulment with re-transfer. The established mistake therefore yielded only a claim in damages.

Cited case law

Supreme Court: ECLI:NL:HR:1998:ZC2629 (Offringa) · ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BF0407 (Van Dalfsen/Kampen) · ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU2414

District courts: ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:6806 (District Court of Gelderland, 13 August 2025)

Juriaan de Vries — lawyer at Prime Law, specialising in corporate and commercial litigation. See the disclaimer.

Undisclosed noise nuisance when buying a home: the seller’s duty to disclose