Purchasing a property, a vehicle, or any other good and subsequently discovering that it presents a hidden defect is a frustrating and potentially costly experience. But what happens when the buyer had already seen something anomalous before signing the contract? Can the seller argue that the defect was "apparent" and thereby escape their own liability? A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation — judgment no. 16628 of 27 May 2026 — clarifies a crucial point that is frequently misunderstood by both sellers and buyers alike.
The Regulatory Framework: What Article 1491 of the Civil Code Provides
The Italian Civil Code, at article 1491, provides that the warranty for defects in the goods sold shall not apply in two specific cases: where the buyer was aware of the defects at the time of purchase, or where those defects were easily recognisable. This is a provision designed to safeguard contractual good faith: it would be inequitable to complain of a defect that had already been noted, or that anyone could have identified with minimal attention.
However, the boundary between what is "known" and what is merely "perceived" is not always clear-cut. And it is precisely on this ground that the Court of Cassation has intervened with the judgment under examination.
Symptom and Cause: A Distinction That Changes Everything
The reasoning of the Supreme Court revolves around a distinction that is apparently technical yet of enormous practical significance: that between the outward symptom of a defect and its underlying internal cause.
Consider purchasing an apartment and noticing, during the viewing, a small damp stain on a wall. You have seen something. But do you truly know what it is? That stain could be the remnant of a leak that has since been resolved, or it could be the indicator of a deep structural problem — chronic water infiltration, a defect in the waterproofing of the floor slab, or a deteriorated pipe. The stain is the symptom; the cause is an entirely different matter.
According to the Court of Cassation, the warranty for defects is excluded only where the buyer was aware of the underlying internal cause of the defect, not where they had merely perceived a superficial signal. In other words:
- Having seen a symptom is not equivalent to knowing the defect.
- Being unaware of the external manifestations of the phenomenon is insufficient to exonerate the seller.
- What is relevant is awareness of the underlying internal cause that gives rise to the defect in the goods.
This clarification is not an absolute novelty in Italian case law — the courts of legitimacy have long distinguished between symptom and cause — but judgment no. 16628/2026 refines its contours, clarifying how the two elements interact with one another in the assessment of the seller's liability.