Provides relative to prescription. (8/1/20)
If enacted, SB377 would create clearer and more consistent legal frameworks for both sellers and buyers within Louisiana. By standardizing the prescriptive periods, it aims to reduce confusion surrounding the application of different time limits for various types of property sales. This could lead to a more predictable environment for commercial transactions, providing better protection for buyers while also holding sellers accountable in terms of defect disclosures. Furthermore, the bill could affect how disputes over property sales are legally resolved, emphasizing a more streamlined approach to litigation.
Senate Bill 377 aims to amend the Louisiana Civil Code concerning prescription periods for various legal actions, specifically regarding redhibition and breach of warranty of fitness for use. The bill proposes a unification of prescriptive periods for actions against both good faith and bad faith sellers of movables and immovables, standardizing the period for redhibition to two years from delivery or one year from discovery of the defect, whichever is shorter. Additionally, it repeals the three-year exception in cases of fraud, which previously allowed for extended claims in such situations.
The sentiment surrounding SB377 is mixed among stakeholders. Proponents, particularly from the legal community and business sectors, support the clarity and consistency the bill would bring to the law regarding sales transactions. They argue that unifying these periods enhances buyer protection against defective goods while simultaneously ensuring that sellers have clear liabilities. Conversely, critics express concerns about potential overreach in removing the previous protections available in cases of fraud, arguing that this change could disadvantage buyers who are victims of unscrupulous sales practices.
Notable points of contention during discussions of SB377 center on the implications of repealing the fraudulent action exception in the three-year prescriptive period. Supporters assert that maintaining a clear legal structure outweighs potential risks, while opponents warn that this could lead to unjust circumstances for buyers who may struggle to uncover fraud within the shortened timeframe. The ongoing debate highlights the balance between protecting buyers' rights and creating a reasonable legal environment for sellers.