A seller in Washington County, Minnesota, discloses on the Seller's Property Disclosure Statement that the property's septic system is 'non-compliant' with current county SSTS standards. The buyer proceeds with the purchase agreement without requesting any repairs. Two weeks before closing, the county inspector confirms the system is non-compliant and estimates the upgrade cost at $18,000. The buyer now wants to rescind. Which of the following best describes the buyer's legal position under Minnesota law?

Correct Answer

B) The buyer likely cannot rescind solely based on the SSTS non-compliance because the seller disclosed the non-compliant status in the original disclosure statement, and the buyer accepted those terms

Under Minnesota law, the seller's duty to disclose is satisfied when the known condition is accurately disclosed on the disclosure statement. When the buyer signs the purchase agreement after receiving a disclosure of a non-compliant SSTS, the buyer has accepted the transaction with knowledge of that condition. The buyer cannot later rescind based solely on the condition that was already disclosed — rescission rights under § 513.57 are triggered by undisclosed defects, not defects that were properly disclosed and accepted.