{"id":6248,"date":"2026-01-20T20:08:34","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T19:08:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paragrafadvokaterne.dk\/?p=6248"},"modified":"2026-01-20T20:08:35","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T19:08:35","slug":"vestre-landsret-urigtige-oplysninger-i-salgsopstilling-udloeser-erstatning-vi-foerte-sagen-til-sejr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/paragrafadvokaterne.dk\/en\/artikler\/vestre-landsret-urigtige-oplysninger-i-salgsopstilling-udloeser-erstatning-vi-foerte-sagen-til-sejr\/","title":{"rendered":"Western High Court: Incorrect information in sales presentation triggers compensation \u2013 we led the case to victory"},"content":{"rendered":"

On January 20, 2026, the Western High Court issued a judgment in a case concerning liability for incorrect information in a sales listing and purchase agreement for an investment property, where attorney (H) S\u00f8ren Vasegaard Andreasen represented the buyer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our client, a professional real estate agent who purchased the property, was found to be in favour of the fact that the stated annual rental income for a parking space was stated approximately DKK 60,000 too high because the amount actually included VAT, even though the key figures were presented as excluding VAT. The High Court awarded discretionary damages of DKK 500,000 with interest and legal costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deficiencies in sales materials<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The core of the case was whether the error in the sales presentation and the purchase agreement gave rise to liability, and whether the buyer had shown passivity. In accordance with established case law, the High Court assumed that rental income when purchasing investment properties is information of significant importance for pricing, and that the error had affected the amount the buyer was prepared to pay for the property. The seller is liable for incorrect information in the documents that the seller has approved, and the buyer's receipt of various attachments before the final agreement did not change the liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court then assessed whether the claim had been forfeited by inaction. The buyer had requested documentation soon after the takeover, made reservations for claims for damages and notified legal action, after which a period passed without further correspondence. In an overall assessment, the High Court found that the seller's reprehensible conduct, the buyer's reservations and prior inquiries meant that the claim had not lapsed by inaction. The seller could not have a legitimate expectation that the claim had been waived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We had argued \u2013 and the High Court agreed \u2013 that the loss should be calculated at the time of the agreement based on the significance of the error for the agreed purchase price. The High Court referred to case law on capitalisation of ongoing payments over an unknown period, including the starting point of a capitalisation factor of 10 in light of the interest rate level, and then estimated the loss at DKK 500,000. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the case before both the city and high courts, we had attempted to challenge the currently set capitalization factor with a claim that the capitalization factor should be increased to 25, citing that the interest rate level has fallen considerably since the last correction in 2002. However, the high court chose to refer to the current Supreme Court case law and was not prepared to increase the capitalization factor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The meaning of the verdict<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

However, the ruling highlights three practical points for professional players in real estate transactions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n