Servitude Non-Disclosure and Contractual Error

A plaintiff sued to recover amounts paid under a contract, alleging the consent of the defendant was vitiated by error, specifically regarding the true extent of an existing servitude burdening the property sold, which fact was not disclosed. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that the alleged error was not essential enough to invalidate the sale, as the error concerned a mere expectation of increased profitability rather than the substance of the property itself. The appellate court confirmed this decision, holding that since the existence of the servitude was known or easily discoverable and did not render the property unfit for its intended use, the alleged error concerning its potential impact on future development did not meet the legal threshold for voiding the contract.