Overestimation of the starting price
In the first intervention of the Court of Cassation, resolved with order 22597/2026, the surveyor appointed in the estimate report for a real estate auction had omitted serious structural deficiencies, building discrepancies and a smaller surface area, indicating a de facto inflated commercial value.
First the Court, and then the Court of Appeal, had recognized the expert’s non-contractual liability for an overestimate of 78,000 euros. However, the judges of merit had reduced the compensation to only a quarter of the sum, maintaining that the buyer had not demonstrated certainty that, with a correct auction starting point, he would have obtained the property at a lower price.
What counts is the loss of chance, not the final result
The Supreme Court has dismantled this restrictive approach, highlighting a serious violation of the articles. 2697 and 1226 of the Civil Code (burden of proof and equitable assessment of damage). In fact, the Supreme Court recalled that the patrimonial chance constitutes a legal and economic entity autonomous from the final profit result. Demanding certainty that the auction would have ended at a lower price means surreptitiously transforming the proof of the lost possibility into the proof of the unrealized result, canceling the conceptual autonomy of the chance.
To obtain compensation, the injured party must only demonstrate – also through presumptions – that he has missed a favorable, serious and concrete opportunity, caused by the “negligent disruptive element” represented by the expert’s error. The uncertainties about the dynamics of the race (number of participants, relaunches) do not eliminate the damage, but are the basis on which to apply the calculation of probabilities.
Hidden constraints and compensation obligation
Ordinance 20944/2026 which concerns the technical report for a sale is of the same nature.
The story arises from an assignment entrusted to a surveyor, aimed at carrying out cadastral, mortgage and urban planning investigations necessary to draw up the technical report for the sale of a real estate complex (a craft warehouse with annexes and courtyard) for the agreed price of 250,000 euros.
The professional had drawn up the document, however, omitting that the property was burdened by constraints of the General Town Plan which placed it in semi-permeable areas and lawns, reducing the eligible interventions to only the ordinary maintenance of the existing one. Following the purchase, the purchasing company discovered that the real value of the asset, precisely because of those constraints ascertained by the expert witness during the case, amounted to only 97,000 euros, i.e. less than half of what was paid.
The damage is always there regardless of the buyer’s intentions
At first instance, the Court of Prato had ordered the surveyor to pay compensation. However, the Court of Appeal of Florence had completely overturned the decision. According to the Florentine judges, although there was a clear breach of duty on the part of the surveyor due to the failure to communicate the constraints, there was no causal link with the damage suffered.
The Supreme Court judged the Court of Appeal’s theory to be clearly illogical and contradictory and re-established the principle of “more probable than not”. In essence, the professional is not paid just to check whether a customer can make changes or not, but to ascertain the full consistency and real characteristics of the good, allowing the customer to make an informed purchase.
Correctly applying the “more likely than not” rule, if the customer had been duly informed that the property was worth less than half due to PRG constraints, would he still have paid 250,000 euros? The answer is logically negative. The urban planning due diligence must be complete: it is not allowed to ignore the plan constraints of the PRG, the variations or the structural plans, even if the property appears formally compliant from the point of view of the historic building titles.
The omission of a restriction that depreciates the property exposes the professional to the obligation to compensate the difference between the price paid and the real market value of the asset.
Responsibilities of the technician in urban planning checks: summary table
We see in this table what the technician’s responsibility is in urban planning checks based on what was established by the Supreme Court ruling no. 20944/2026:
|
Aspect of the Technical Assignment |
The interpretation of the Court of Appeal (Censored) |
The principle of law of the Supreme Court (Confirmed) |
|---|---|---|
|
Perimeter of the verification obligation |
Limited to building and cadastral compliance explicitly required for current use. |
It must fully include the characteristics and urban planning constraints of the PRG. |
|
Relevance of plan constraints |
Considered relevant only if the customer intends to make structural changes or expansions. |
Always relevant, as it defines the real economic consistency of the property being bought and sold. |
|
Causality (Damage-Error) |
Excluded because the above-market price was considered a “deal risk” for the customer. |
It exists if the omission of information has led the customer to pay an out-of-market price. |
|
“More likely than not” rule |
Formally mentioned but hollowed out through speculation about the buyer’s intentions. |
It should be used to check whether the customer, informed of the constraints, would have accepted that price. |
|
Object of customer protection |
Limited to the technical possibility of enjoying the property in its current consistency. |
Extended to the right to know the exact value of the asset so as not to spend more than necessary. |
