Study the scenario and complete the question(s) that follow:

Ronald sells his estate in a leafy Sandton suburb to Gerald for R14 000 000. Ronald insists to his lawyers that they must insert a voetstoots clause in the agreement of sale with Gerald. Ronald does this knowing that his property is one of the ones in the area that have been cited by the Johannesburg municipality as having been built on a wetland. Ronald has even further been informed that his property will collapse within years if structural adjustments are not made and that flooding will be a constant bother for him. A year after the sale is concluded, Gerald approaches Ronald, complaining as he is unhappy that the property he sold him (Roland was fully aware when he sold) was built on a wetland and is going to be unfit for habitation due to constant flooding. Gerald is very dissatisfied as he paid a huge amount of money and wants to institute legal action against Ronald.

1.1 With reference to the leading Van der Merwe v Meades case, define and explain the voetstoots principle and whether Gerald will be able to successfully claim from the seller Ronald in this scenario.

1.2 Would your answer in 1.1 have been different if Ronaldo was unaware of the existence of the wetland on his property?

1.3 Distinguish between a latent and patent defect and discuss the ramifications of nondisclosure, if any, for the seller as stated in the Glanston House v Inag case 1977 2 SA 846 (A).