Property Sale Area Shortfall and Misrepresentation Claim

A buyer of property, having contracted to purchase land with a specific area but later discovering a shortfall, sued the seller for the difference in value based on the contract's stated area, despite the contract containing a clause stating the sale was made without guarantee of the exact area, which the buyer claimed rendered the clause void due to lack of knowledge of the true area at the time of contracting. The court partially overturned the lower court's decision, reasoning that while a general clause excluding guarantees regarding the area does not apply when the seller knew the precise area and intentionally misled the buyer, the buyer could only claim reimbursement for the difference in price corresponding to the unmentioned area if they could prove the seller's bad faith or if the contract specified an exact area that was a determining factor in the sale, which the court found was not sufficiently established in the judgment under review regarding the contractual stipulation.