The purpose of this thesis is to, in a comparative study, examine differences in the law concerning the obligation for a vendor to inform at real estate purchase and purchase of movable property. The thesis shall also examine whether the differences are justified for the vendor of goods.

A provision that refers to the seller's obligation to inform doesn’t exist in ch. 4 JB. The legislative history shows that the buyer’s obligation to inspect is the basis for the allocation of liability and that there isn’t a general obligation for the vendor to inform. In NJA 2007 p. 86, it was considered justifiable to depart from the usual risk allocation and impose a real estate vendor an obligation to inform, which seems to be general.

The case mentioned above draws parallels with the contractual term of 19 § 1p. (2) AvtL, which gives a certain degree of obligation to inform. In doctrine, it’s debated whether the vendor in some situations should have such an obligation. After the ruling in NJA 2007 p. 86, an obligation to inform alongside AvtL’s rules on invalidity has now been established.

With regard to legislative history, case law and doctrine examined concerning 19 § 1p. (2) AvtL, it can be concluded that there isn’t a clear support that the vendor’s obligation to inform goes alongside the AvtL’s rules on invalidity. The vendor of real estate is liable now by NJA 2007 p. 86 already at the lower degree of dishonesty, which might have created a sort of discrepancy between the vendor of movable property and the vendor of real estate.

My overall conclusion is therefore that the current differences created in the law regarding the vendor's obligation to inform when vending goods can’t be justified, having regard to the discrepancy that emerged between asset classes and which can’t avoid to qualify as a general obligation to inform for the vendor of real estate.