Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO VL:2026-23 AI generated

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

Case Number KKO VL:2026-23
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

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.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

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.

Keywords

AI generated
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

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Property Act 1995, Chapter 2, Section 25, Paragraph 2
AI generated
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.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

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.