Buying Without Legal Warranty in Quebec: What You Still Keep

You find a listing you like, and one line stops you: sale without legal warranty, at the buyer's own risk ("sans garantie légale, aux risques et périls de l'acheteur"). The instinct is to wonder what is being hidden. That instinct is understandable, but it often aims at the wrong target. Our guide to the promise to purchase in Quebec covers the document as a whole. This article looks at one clause only: what it takes away from the buyer, what it leaves in place, and how to account for it before you sign.

The two warranties a Quebec seller normally owes

Absent a special clause, the seller of a property in Quebec owes the buyer two warranties under the Civil Code of Quebec. The first is the warranty of ownership: the buyer must receive a property free of rights a third party could assert against them, other than those the buyer accepted. The second is the warranty of quality, usually called the warranty against latent defects (hidden defects): it protects the buyer against a hidden defect affecting the property at the time of sale.

These warranties apply even if nobody writes them down. They are the baseline of every sale, and any exclusion clause is measured against them.

What the law lets you exclude, and what it does not

The Civil Code allows the parties to add to the legal warranties, reduce them or exclude them by contract. A promise to purchase stating "without legal warranty" uses that freedom: the buyer agrees to give up, in whole or in part, the remedy they would have had if a latent defect surfaced after the sale.

That freedom has an important limit. The seller cannot exclude or limit liability for defects they knew of or could not have been unaware of and did not disclose. In other words, the clause protects a seller against what they honestly did not know, not against what they knew and kept quiet about.

Without legal warranty vs. at the buyer's own risk

The two phrases look alike and often appear together, but they do not say exactly the same thing. "Without legal warranty" excludes the warranty, subject to the limit just described: a defect the seller knew about and did not disclose remains the seller's responsibility.

"At the buyer's own risk" goes further in one specific situation. The Civil Code makes an exception to that limit when the buyer buys at their own risk from a seller who is not a professional. In that case it may be otherwise: the buyer takes on a broader risk than under a plain exclusion of warranty.

The real reach of a clause depends on its wording, on who the seller is and on the facts. Two promises that look identical can produce different results. That is why interpreting a specific clause is a job for a notary or a lawyer, not for a quick read of the listing.

What the buyer still has despite the clause

Giving up the legal warranty does not mean giving up all protection. Three things remain.

• A remedy based on fraud. A false statement or intentional silence by the seller about a material fact rests on a different legal basis than the warranty of quality. An exclusion clause does not cover deception.
• The duty to answer the seller's declarations honestly. When the seller fills out the seller's declarations form, they must answer honestly. A sale without warranty does not allow inaccurate answers.
• The buyer's own checks. The pre-purchase inspection, the title search by the notary and the certificate of location remain fully available to the buyer, and they carry more weight once the warranty is gone.

These three should be read for what they are. Fraud requires showing intent, which is harder than a warranty claim. The declarations only cover what the seller knows. The checks depend on you, and they are the only ones that work before the deed is signed.

Why the clause is not a red flag in itself

The clause is common in situations where the seller simply does not know the property well, which says nothing about its condition:

• an estate sale, when the heirs never lived in the house and cannot vouch for anything;
• a bank repossession, where the seller is a lender that never occupied the property;
• a sale by an institution, selling a property it never used.

In these cases the seller is not excluding the warranty because they are hiding a defect, but because they cannot answer for what they do not know. The clause shifts the risk to the buyer. It does not grade the property: a house sold without warranty can be in excellent shape, and a house sold with a warranty can carry a defect nobody has spotted yet.

The right question is not "there must be a problem" but "if there is a problem, I will be the one carrying it." That difference changes what you do next.

How to factor it in before you sign

Since the clause transfers a risk, it should show up in two places: the price and the checks.

• In the price. A buyer who agrees to carry the risk of latent defects gives up a remedy that has value. It is reasonable for the offer to reflect that, rather than paying the same price as with a full warranty.
• In the inspection. The pre-purchase inspection becomes the main way to discover what the warranty would have covered. It deserves a qualified inspector, and its findings deserve a careful read before any condition is waived.
• In the title and location documents. The warranty of ownership may also be affected by the clause. The notary's title search and an up-to-date certificate of location check what no declaration can replace.
• In the clause itself. Have the exact wording reviewed. Whether it targets only the warranty of quality or also the warranty of ownership, and whether the seller is a professional, changes its scope.

For a broader look at the legal warranty itself, our article on the legal warranty in Quebec real estate covers it in more depth. For your own file, only a notary or a lawyer can tell you what your clause covers and what it leaves open. This article is not legal advice.