Andorra la VellaA man acquired real estate units corresponding to commercial premises in a building in Aldosa de la Massana. In the deed of sale, the seller claimed that the goods sold were free of tenants. The buyer claims that he subsequently ‘discovered’ that what was signed in front of a notary did not correspond to reality. One of the premises is occupied by a baker who had a lease granted by the seller with an option to purchase (from February 1, 2023) for a period of 7 years and with a lease price of 300. The lease is therefore extended until April 2030.
The man appealed to the courts to be able to dispose of the premises which, in addition, the baker could acquire once the seven-year lease ends. He stated that he had acquired the property without it being recorded that there were tenants and that there is no record that records that the premises have a lease with the right to buy. And he warned of possible legal action because he was guaranteed that there were no occupants.
Claim rejected
Both the ordinary judicial authorities and the Constitutional Court have rejected the demand. They understand that the fact that the lease-to-purchase option is not on the register is because it is a non-legislated formula, but it does not mean that it is invalid.
It is also overturned because the buyer cannot say that he did not know that the premises were occupied because it is clear that there is an oven “without the fact that, given the small size of the town where it is located, the appellant could ignore it, especially if take into account that he resides in the same town and that in the sales contract he admitted to having visited the premises previously”.