Lack or no lack

And why shouldn't the soil be different exactly there than next door?

.

I agree with my predecessors.

Nevertheless, the described soil has not yet been examined; it is currently hearsay, which has not been proven.
If it is the case: look at it positively, possibly saving the subsoil for the construction road and forecourt ;)

You cannot and must not evaluate it quite that simply. Even in property purchases "as is," there is the obligation that the seller must voluntarily point out defects or value-affecting factors known to them. In this case, the circumstance to be assessed is whether the seller knew about this soil contamination and possibly deliberately concealed it to achieve the expected purchase contract at the hoped-for price. If this is the case, the contract could possibly be contested due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

As always, the "double intent" must be proven here. This means the seller’s knowledge of the special condition and their concealment of it with the aim of concluding the purchase contract, which would not have been concluded or not at the hoped-for purchase price if mentioned.

Referencing a soil report is always helpful (without one, I would never build), but it is not the only way to handle such matters.

Hello,,

As always, the "double intent" has to be proven here. That is, the seller's knowledge of the special condition and the concealment of the same with the aim of concluding the purchase contract, which would not have been concluded or not with the hoped-for purchase price if mentioned.

Well formulated; try to prove it in practice ... for example, if the seller works for a municipality and there are several kilometers between the - exclusively desk-bound - clerk and the new development area; the preparation of the pre-notarial correspondence is handled via e-mail.

Rhine greetings

When purchasing a plot of land directly from the municipality, and if there were no problems in the neighborhood, I probably wouldn’t have commissioned a soil report either. And if it can be proven that the builder dumped construction debris there (with or without the municipality’s knowledge), then they could possibly (by the municipality?) be held accountable? Regardless – the seller is the municipality – and this also involves politics, because a local elected official and a committee "govern." There will certainly be an agreement here. "Bought as seen" only means that there are no obvious defects – even if by now the issue has essentially been forgotten. For example, in our case, the municipality even mowed the plot shortly before construction began :) And because the development had been ongoing for some time, it was also known that the soil was okay.