Clause on exclusion of material defects in the contract

Hello everyone,

we are currently checking some clauses in the notary contract draft for the purchase of a building plot from the municipality and are wondering which clause would be "more advantageous" for us:

1.
"Claims and rights of the buyers due to a material defect of the property are excluded, unless the seller acts intentionally."

or rather

2.
"The rights of the buyer due to a material defect of the property and the building are excluded. Exceptions are claims for damages resulting from injury to life, body, or health, insofar as the seller is responsible for the breach of duty, as well as claims for compensation of other damages based on an intentional or grossly negligent breach of duty by the seller. A breach of duty by the seller is equivalent to that of a legal representative or a vicarious agent."

The notary said both would be possible. The first sentence should be legally sufficient, as it concerns a completely new agricultural plot for which there is a development plan.o_O

If the first is not 100% legally compliant after all, would that be an advantage for us buyers in case of damage?

Can someone assess this?

Many thanks in advance:)

Both basically state that you will only possibly receive any compensation if you can prove that the seller himself buried the uranium waste there or clearly knew about it. Since the seller is certainly not the "real" owner (farmer) of the former farmland, your seller does not even know what was done there before (e.g. the farmer used to bury his tires there). Take whichever you prefer or whichever the notary recommends. In the end, both are basically worthless because you are more likely to win the lottery than to get a cent from the seller in the event of damage.