Help! Unclear Floor Construction and Microbial Odor

[Lars48]

However, the defect is now detected, or at least indicated, by the inspector. It will be difficult to claim it as a latent defect then.

I perceive it as indicated and not detected. Because if it is detected, then TS does not need to investigate it further. If it is only indicated, then TS has most likely received an increased duty of investigation from the inspection. The question is whether it is beneficial for the seller to allow the buyer to apply the extended duty by bringing in a mold dog or not. In my eyes, it is beneficial because then the seller closes all avenues for the buyer to invoke latent defects.
Suppose the seller does not allow the buyer to investigate the matter further, and the buyer purchases the house, discovers mold, and sues the seller for latent defects. The buyer can say that he did not perceive that mold was confirmed but that the inspector had suspicions of either mold or some chemical substance. The inspector can say that he did not at all ask the buyer to investigate the matter further but that it was about weak suspicions and if it was not possible to make holes and take samples, then the defect was not confirmed. Then the seller is in a bad position because it can still be considered a latent defect that could not be discovered through a Jordabalk inspection.

 

[ToRy]

And I also believe that since the inspector has noted a bacterial smell in the space, the buyer's duty to investigate is expanded. Therefore, they cannot claim a hidden defect afterward because the inspector detected and recorded the result in the form of a smell. The buyer should simply dig deeper into the cause of the smell. I think, for clarification.

At the same time, from the seller's perspective, the problem is already indicated, so if another buyer were to come there, not find any fault, buy the house, and then find mold and claim a hidden defect. Then, possibly, the seller might be in an awkward position because he didn't mention that the smell was previously noted and that the previous inspector suspected mold. So from the seller's perspective, perhaps the best is to bring in a dog, confirm that there is a moisture damage somewhere, and address it, to avoid future problems. Again, I think this. At least it sounds morally reasonable to my ears. But that assumes the next interested buyer gets access to and can refer to a previous buyer's inspection report, of course...

 

[Lars48]

And I also believe that since the inspector noted a bacterial smell in the area, the duty to investigate is extended for the buyer. The buyer cannot claim hidden faults afterward because the inspector discovered and documented the smell. The buyer simply should dig deeper into the cause of the smell, I believe, for clarification.

At the same time, from the seller's perspective, the problem has already been indicated, so if another buyer comes, doesn’t find any fault, buys the house, and then finds mold and claims it as a hidden fault. The seller might be in a tricky situation since he didn't inform that a smell was previously noted, and the previous inspector suspected mold. So from the seller's viewpoint, it might be best to get someone to verify if it's a moisture damage and fix it to avoid future problems. Again, this is what I believe. At least it sounds morally reasonable to me. However, it requires that the next interested buyer has access to, and can cite, the previous buyer's inspection report of course...

If TS backs out and the seller sells to a new prospect, it becomes an interesting case.
The seller indeed has no legal obligation to inform about the smell and previous inspections. Morally, one might think he's wrong, but not legally. He can just as easily keep quiet and sell for the best price without inspection. If the buyer sues him, he can argue that this would have been revealed in an inspection anyway and win.
If he sells with an inspection and there is a note regarding the smell, it is of great interest to the seller to protect himself against any potential dispute.

 

[ToRy]

So you mean that the seller is fully entitled to withhold known issues from the next prospective buyer? (It's a question, not a challenge. I simply don't know....) To my ears it sounds horrible, but on the other hand, the law is not always based on morality so you're probably right.

 

[Lars48]

So you mean that the seller is fully within their rights to withhold known issues from the next potential buyer? (It's a question, not a challenge. I simply don't know...) To my ears, it sounds horrible, but on the other hand, the law isn't always based on morality, so you're probably right.

I'm not saying they have the right to do so, but there is no law that obliges the seller to disclose the faults. So if the seller doesn't tell about the faults, they haven't done anything illegal. Then it's up to the buyer to prove that the seller withheld important information, which is practically very, very difficult. If the buyer can succeed with that, then new avenues open up. The buyer can then claim that if they had received this information, the duty to investigate would have been expanded, and they would have had the opportunity to examine the fault more thoroughly. Then the buyer has fewer obligations concerning the duty to investigate.
But I have personally never seen a single legal case where the seller has lost because they withheld information from the buyer.