(B) Manufacturers’ guarantees

French textbooks often distinguish between the garantie légale (the guarantee which is required of sellers by the law itself) and garanties conventionnelles (guarantees which result from agreement). As between the parties to a contract of sale, express guarantees form an example of the express setting of ‘contractual conformity’.³⁶⁴ To the extent to which they add to a buyer’s rights, they take effect according to their terms; to the extent to which they purport to reduce the buyer’s rights either in so many words or by excluding the seller’s liability, they are treated as exemption clauses and subjected to the controls of this type of terms which I have already discussed.³⁶⁵ In the case of manufacturers’ guarantees, there appears to be no doubt among French lawyers that they can create direct contractual relations between those that give them and their beneficiaries.³⁶⁶ A buyer’s claim under a garantie conventionelle is governed by the general law and therefore was not caught by the bref délai.³⁶⁷

While there is relatively little up-to-date work published on French practice in relation to manufacturers’ guarantees, they appear to rely on quite different concepts and principles from their ‘legal’ counterparts.³⁶⁸ So, while they do require a buyer to show the defectiveness of a product, the concern is that it appears within a set period from the time of sale: there is no need for a buyer to show that the defect existed earlier. Typically, the seller or guarantor offers the repair of the goods supplied and, sometimes, their replacement, but no reduction in price nor damages. A buyer who benefits from such a guarantee may choose instead to claim under the garantie légale even having renounced the benefit of the contractual guarantee.³⁶⁹

Notes:

(¹) Below, pp. 453, 574–83.

(²) Below, pp. 69–72.

(³) Below, p. 72. For the history of these developments used as an example of the influence of doctrinal legal writing and case law on private law development, see Bell, French Legal Cultures, 89–91 .

(⁴) But see below, p. 72, as to whether there has been a degree of settling down since the mid-1990s.

(⁵) Civ. (1) 5 May 1993, D 1993.506, below p. 72.

(⁶) Below, p. 580.

(⁷) Arts. 1110, 1116 C civ.

(⁸) Nicholas, 84–5 .

(⁹) Ibid., 85–6 ; J. Cartwright, ‘Defects of Consent and Security of Contract: French and English Law Compared’ in P. Birks and A. Pretto (eds.), Themes in Comparative Law in Honour of Bernard Rudden (OUP, 2002) Chap. 11 .

(¹⁰) Civ. 23 Nov. 1931, affaire de la Villa Jacqueline, DP 1932.1.129, note Josserand, GP 1932.1.96.

(¹¹) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 241 .

(¹²) Civ. (1) 4 Feb. 1975, D 1975. 405.

(¹³) Larroumet, Contrat, 305 .

(¹⁴) Civ. (1) 4 Feb. 1975, D 1975.405.

(¹⁵) Such a mistake may be caused by a pre-contractual and therefore delictual fault of negligence and so give rise to damages: Terré, Simler and Lequette, Obligations, 229 ; Civ (3) 29 Nov. 1968, GP 1969.1.63.

(¹⁶) Civ. (1) 28 Jun. 1988, D 1989.450 note Lapoyade-Deschamps; Civ. (1) 28 June 1989, Bull. civ. I no. 268, D 1991 Somm. 318 and see Ghestin, La formation du contrat, 509–13 (setting out the doctrinal controversy).

(¹⁷) Civ. (1) 14 May 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 213, D 1998.305 note F. Jault-Seseke; JCP 1997.I.4009 note C. Radé.

(¹⁸) Civ. (1) 22 Apr. 1997, Bull. civ. I no. 129; Civ. (3) 29 Nov. 2000, Bull. civ. III no. 182.

(¹⁹) Carbonnier, Obligations, 113–14 .

(²⁰) E.g. Civ. (1) 15 May 2002, Bull. civ. I no. 132.

(²¹) The idea is attributed to M. de Juglart, ‘L’obligation de renseignements dans les contrats’ (1945) RTDCiv. 1 and see for a general comparative discussion, J. Ghestin and B. Nicholas, ‘The Pre-contractual Obligation to Disclose Information’, in D. Harris and D. Tallon (eds.), Contract Law Today (OUP, 1989) 151 .

(²²) Below, pp. 67–9.

(²³) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 238 .

(²⁴) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 366 .

(²⁵) Art. 1135 C. civ; e.g. Civ. (1) 3 Jul. 1985, Bull. civ. I no. 211, JCP 1985.IV.320.

(²⁶) Arts. 1603, 1615 C. civ; Civ. (1) 20 Mar. 1989, D 1989.IR.178. Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 226 et seq. at 227 refer to ‘the devoir d’information…which enlarges the obligation to deliver and relates it to the garantie [légale]’. Cf. Ghestin, op. cit. n. 21 , who argues that the general doctrine can be constructed on the basis of a number of particular examples of obligations d’information found in legislation and case law.

(²⁷) Loi no. 92–60 of 18 Jan. 1992, art. 2; now art. L. 111–1 C. consom.

(²⁸) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 427 .

(²⁹) Below, pp. 68–9.

(³⁰) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 426 (writing in 1998) .

(³¹) Above, p. 65.

(³²) Art. 1184 C. civ. and see e.g. Com 12 Apr. 1995, Cont, cone, cons. 1995 no. 125 obs. Leveneur.

(³³) Above, p. 27.

(³⁴) See notably, M. Fabre-Magnan, De l’obligation d’information dans les contrats (LGDJ, Paris, 1992), 224 et seq. , who suggests a distinction between those obligations whose purpose is to enlighten a party’s consent (which are pre-contractual) and those whose purpose is to ensure a satisfactory performance of the contract (which are contractual).

(³⁵) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 920 ; Terré, Simler and Lequette, Obligations, 237 .

(³⁶) Cf. below, pp. 95–8. According to this line of argument, an obligation d’information is considered merely as part of the obligation de délivrance giving rise to liability under the droit commun contractuel and an action based explicitly on an obligation de livrer line chose conforme has been transmitted in this way: Ass. plé 7 Feb. 1986, JCP 1986 II 20616 note Malinvaud, D 1986.293 note Bénabent.

(³⁷) Malinvaud, note to Com. 16 Oct. 1973, JCP 1974.II.17846 and see, eg. Civ. (1) 11 Oct. 1983, Bull. civ. I no. 228, RTDCiv. 1984.731 obs. Huet.

(³⁸) E.g. Civ. (1) 31 Jan. 1973, JCP 1974.II.17846 note Malinvaud (manufacturer’s liability to consumer for personal injuries caused by a failure to warn properly of the product’s dangers is ‘necessarily contrac tual’); Civ. (1) 11 Oct. 1983, cit.; Com 25 Jun. 1980, Bull. civ. IV no. 276, RTDCiv. 1981.157 obs Durry (contractual liability for failure to warn about undiscoverable quality of paint); Paris 2 Feb. 1990, D 1990.IR.51 (pre-contractual liability in delict).

(³⁹) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 227–8 ; Civ. (3) 21 Jul. 1993, D 1994 Somm. 237 note Tournafond (sale of building); Cf. Civ. (3) 29 Nov. 2000, Bull. civ. III no. 182.

(⁴⁰) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 229–30 ; P. Jourdain, ‘Le devoir de “se” renseigner’ D 1983 Chron. 139 and P. Le Tourneau, ‘De l’allégement de l’obligation de renseignements ou de conseil’ D 1987 Chron. 101.

(⁴¹) Civ. (1) 9 Dec. 1975, JCP 1977.II.18588 note Malinvaud, D 1978.205 note Savatier; Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1980, JCP 1980.IV.324 (claimant’s exclusive fault).

(⁴²) Civ. (1) 20 Jun. 1995, D 1995.IR.200; Civ. (1) 3 Jun. 1998, JCP 1998.IV.2684. Cf. Civ. (1) 7 Jun. 1989, D 1989.IR.200 (manufacturer of veterinary pharmaceuticals under a legislative duty to inform vet of a contra-indication of its product held liable for failing to do so).

(⁴³) G. Viney, ‘L’indemnisation des atteintes à la sécurité des consommateurs en droit français’, in Ghestin, Sécurité des consommateurs, 78 ; Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 55 and see Civ. (1) 23 Apr. 1985, Bull. civ. I no. 125, RTDCiv. 1986.367 obs. Huet. Where liability is delictual, the legal basis is proven fault under arts. 1382 or 1383 C. civ.

(⁴⁴) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 474 .

(⁴⁵) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 241 .

(⁴⁶) Civ. (1) 25 Feb. 1997, Hédreul, JCP 1997.I.4025 note Viney (medical obligation to warn of risks of operation); Malaurie, Aynès, and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 228 .

(⁴⁷) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 130 .

(⁴⁸) Civ. (1) 9 Dec. 1975, JCP 1977.II.18588 note Malinvaud, D 1978.205 note Savatier.

(⁴⁹) Civ. (1) 14 Dec. 1982, D 1983.IR.131, GP 1983 Pan. Jur. 119.

(⁵⁰) Civ. (1) 11 Oct. 1983, Bull. civ. I, no. 228, RTDCiv. 1984.731 obs. Huet. See also Civ. (1) 3 Jan. 1973, JCP 1974.II.17846, note Malinvaud; Civ. (1) 10 Jun. 1980, Cie d’installation, JCP 1980.IV.324 (restaurant liable to a child for injuries caused by a rotating dessert trolley recovered an indemnity against its installer and its manufacturer for failure in their obligations de renseignements).

(⁵¹) Com. 11 Jul. 1988, Bull. civ. IV no. 250, JCP 1988.IV343; Civ. (1) 4 May 1994, Bull. civ. I no. 163, D 1994.Somm.236 note G. Paisant.

(⁵²) Civ. (2) 17 Nov. 1976, Bull. civ. I no. 355.

(⁵³) The duty is particularly extensive where the product is complex or technical and needs to be suitable to the particular needs of the purchaser, as in the case of a computer system. However, even here, the seller is not under a duty to recommend a product other than for the purchaser’s present or perhaps foreseeable, needs at the time of contract and so a supplier of a business computing system has been held not liable when it proved unable to cope with an increased workload, itself the consequence of a considerable expansion in the buyer’s business: Com 14 Mar. 1989, Bull. civ. IV no. 89, JCP 1989.IV.185.

(⁵⁴) Civ (1) 3 Jul. 1985, JCP 1985.IV320 (individual); Civ. (3) 13 May 1987, JCP 1987.IV.244 (busi ness); Civ. (1) 23 Apr. 1985, Bull. civ. I no. 125, RTDCiv. 1986.367, obs. Huet (paint used by professional artist became detached from canvas); Civ. (1) 4 May 1994, Bull. civ. I no. 163, D 1994. Somm. 236 note G. Paisant (newly marketed seeds sold to farmer).

(⁵⁵) Civ. (1) 7 Jun. 1995, Bull. civ. I no. 251; Com. 17 Mar. 1998, Bull. civ. IV no. 105.

(⁵⁶) Com. 11 Jul. 1988, Bull. civ. IV no. 250.

(⁵⁷) Com. 15 Apr. 1975, Bull. civ. IV no. 106.

(⁵⁸) See also Civ. (1) 22 Nov. 1978, affaire Quinoléine, JCP 1979.II.19139 note Viney (manufacturer of pesticides liable for damage to vines caused by product difficult to use in local conditions).

(⁵⁹) Versailles 13 May 1988, Epoux Bouju, D 1988.IR. 203.

(⁶⁰) Com. 5 Dec. 1989, Bull. civ. IV no. 306, D 1990 Somm. 322 note Huet. Cf. Civ. (1) 26 Nov. 1981, Bull. civ. I no. 354, JCP 1982.IV63.

(⁶¹) Below, p. 72.

(⁶²) Above, p. 65.

(⁶³) Below, p. 463.

(⁶⁴) Liability for latent defects arose from the edict of the curile aediles in the late second century BC and originally concerned the rules applicable to the public sale of slaves and certain types of livestock: Zimmermann, Obligations, 311 et seq.; Zimmermann, Liability for Non-Conformity, 9 et seq.

(⁶⁵) In Roman law this was six months as regards the actio redhibitoria (Dig. 21.1.19.6), twelve months as regards the actio quanti minoris (Dig. 21.1.38 pr.). Liability in damages for loss caused by a defect was developed as the principles laid down in the aedilitian edict became absorbed by the general action on the purchase, the actio empti, which enjoyed a prescription period of 30 years: Zimmermann, Obligations, 321–2, 324 . In the modern law, the starting point and length of the ‘short delay’ was assessed by the juges du fond, see below, pp. 91–93.

(⁶⁶) The garantie légalehas been said to apply to the supply of computer software, at least if it is a standard program, as much as to the supply of computers themselves: Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 171 .

(⁶⁷) Notably parts of the the human body which neither in whole or in part can be the subject of a contract: Savatier note to Civ. 17 Dec. 1954, JCP 1955.II.8490. Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 139–40.

(⁶⁸) This follows from the terms and structure of the Civil Code itself, see arts. 1598, 1641–1649 and the declaration in Com. 11 Jun. 1954, D. 1954.697. There are special rules for ventes d’immeubles à construire similar to the regime applicable to builders generally: art. 1646–1 C. civ. and below, p. 104 et seq.

(⁶⁹) Com. 11 Jun. 1954, D 1954.697.

(⁷⁰) Com. 20 Jan. 1970, JCP 1972.II.17280 note Boitard et Rabut (mechanical component of ship).

(⁷¹) Below, p. 73 et seq. and 79 et seq.

(⁷²) See generally, Zimmermann, Obligations, 319–22 .

(⁷³) Arts. 1603–1604 C. civ.

(⁷⁴) Arts. 1147–1148 C. civ.

(⁷⁵) Arts. 1183–1184 C. civ. (résolution).

(⁷⁶) Above, p. 69 and below, p. 91 et seq.

(⁷⁷) O. Tournafond, ‘Les prétendus concours d’actions et le contrat de vente (erreur sur la substance, défaut de conformité, vice caché)’ D 1989 Chron. 237, 238.

(⁷⁸) J. Schmidt-Szalewski, ‘Vente, Obligations du vendeur Obligation de délivrance Généralités. Etendue,’ Jur. Cl. Civ . arts. 1603–1623 (2003), Fasc. 210. In the case of sales of land, the Code contains special provisions as to the conveyance of property of a different size than was stipulated: arts. 1616–1619 C. civ.

(⁷⁹) Civ. (1) 11 Oct. 1966, JCP 1967.II.15193 note Géraud de la Pradelle.

(⁸⁰) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 750 citing Civ. (1) 1 Dec. 1987, Bull civ. I no. 324.

(⁸¹) Civ. (3) 28 Nov. 1968, JCP 1969 II 15797.

(⁸²) C. Aubry and C. Rau, Cours de droit civil français, Tome V (Eds. Techniques, Paris, 6th. edn., 1947 by P. Esmein) 60 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 217 .

(⁸³) This is often supported by reference to art. 1246 C. civ: de Juglart, Vente, 247 ; Req. 18 Dec. 1934, GP 1935.1.271 (where the court took into account the parties’ previous dealings).

(⁸⁴) Under arts. 1147 and 1603 C. civ. There may be other remedial effects, see below, p. 79 et seq.

(⁸⁵) Civ. (1) 4 Apr. 1991, affaire de la Renault neuve, Bull. civ. I no. 130, D 1992 Somm. 201 obs: Tournafond (emphasis added).

(⁸⁶) Notably, Ghestin, Conformité et garantie, 134 , echoing Pothier, Vente, 161–162 . Ghestin argued for a ‘chronological’ basis for distinguishing between liability arising from the obligation de délivrance (to be applied to defects before the property has been accepted) and from the garantie légale (to be applied to latent defects arising after the property has been accepted): Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 820 et seq.

(⁸⁷) Again, see Ghestin and Desché, Vente 764 et seq. This represented a change in interpretation of art. 1641 C. civ.

(⁸⁸) Tournafond, op. cit. n. 77 , D 1989 Chron. 237 who dates these developments to the 1950s.

(⁸⁹) Above, p. 70.

(⁹⁰) This approach was implicitly endorsed by the Assemblée plénière: Ass. plén. 7 Feb. 1986 JCP 1986.II.20616 note Malinvaud, D 1986.293 note Bénabent. See also Civ. (1) 5 Nov. 1985, Bull. civ. I no. 287 (damages in respect of damage caused by defect in design of motorcycle against its manufacturer); Civ. (1) 13 Dec. 1989, Bull. civ. I, no. 393 (résolution of sale of car with design and manufacturing defects against its retailer).

(⁹¹) Art. 12 al. 1 N.c.pr.civ; Civ. (1) 16 Jun. 1993, D 1994.210.

(⁹²) Ghestin and Desché, Vente 830–31 ; P. Le Tourneau, ‘Conformités et garanties dans la vente d’objets mobiliers corporels’ RTDCom. 1980.231, 271–2 .

(⁹³) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 47 .

(⁹⁴) Civ. (1) 5 May 1993, D 1993.506 note Bénabent; Civ. (1) 16 Jun. 1993, D 1994.210; Civ. (1) 13 Oct. 1993, D 1994.211; Civ. (1) 27 Oct. 1993, D 1994.211; Com. 26 Apr. 1994, Bull. civ. IV no. 159; P. Jourdain, ‘Les actions des acquéreurs insatisfaits ou victimes de dommages’ GP 1994.2.826; Civ. (1) 20 Feb. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 86.

(⁹⁵) Civ. (1) 16 Jun. 1993, D 1994.210; Civ. (1) 17 Jun. 1997, Bull. civ. I no. 206 (taxi to be specially adapted to take disabled passengers).

(⁹⁶) E.g. civ. (1) 30 March 1999, Bull. civ. I no. 118, Cont. Cone. Cons. (1999) 110 note L. Leveneur (crop seeds which became diseased held to be a matter of ‘contractual non-conformity’ rather than vice caché as the price and previous course of dealings between the parties led the juges du fond to hold that treated seeds had been ordered).

(⁹⁷) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 199 et seq. esp. at 202. Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 208 ask whether the distinction required is not ‘over-subtle’.

(⁹⁸) Below, pp. 580–1.

(⁹⁹) Above, p. 22–3.

(¹⁰⁰) Jourdain, obs. RTDCiv. 1991.539, 540. Some influence may also have been felt from the enactment of a general duty as the safety of products and services in 1983: loi no. 83–660 of 21 Jul. 1983, art. 1, now art. L. 221–1 C. consom., below, p. 309

(¹⁰¹) Civ. (1) 17 Jan. 1995, D 1995.350 note Jourdain and see below, pp. 455–7.

(¹⁰²) Below, pp. 461–3.

(¹⁰³) While not universal in French usage, I shall restrict vice for defects giving rise to liability under the garantie légale, défaut for defects giving rise to liability under the general law.

(¹⁰⁴) Angers 30 Oct. 1951, D 1952.60.

(¹⁰⁵) Com. 17 Dec. 1973, GP 1974.1.429 note Planqueel, JCP 1975.II.17912 note Savatier; Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1979, affaire Lamborghini, GP 1980.1.249 note Planqueel, D 1980.IR.222, obs. Larroumet; Civ. (1) 28 Nov. 1979, D 1985.485 note Huet, D 1980.IR.566 obs. Larroumet; Civ. (1) 14 May 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 213.

(¹⁰⁶) Ass. plén. 7 Feb. 1986, JCP 1986.II.20616 note Malinvaud, D 1986.293 note Bénabent (an insulat ing product which corroded the pipes into which it was placed).

(¹⁰⁷) Viney, op. cit. n. 43 , in Ghestin, Sécurité des consommateurs, at 76–77 ; Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 163 . E.g. Civ. (5) Nov. 1985, Bull. civ. I no. 287 (design of motorcycle and défaut de conformité); Civ. (1) 23 May 1995, Bull. civ. I no. 217, (motor vehicle and vice caché); Civ. (1) 17 Jun. 1997, Bull. civ. I no. 206 (motor vehicle and défaut de conformité); Civ. (1) 20 Feb. 1996, Civ. I no. 86 (electric equipment and vice caché).

(¹⁰⁸) Civ. (1) 24 Apr. 1985, Bull. civ. I no. 128, RTDCiv. 1986.366 obs. Huet.

(¹⁰⁹) E.g. Com. 6 Oct. 1975, D. 1976 IR 20 (provenance of apparatus specified). The definition need not be express: e.g. Paris 27 Nov. 1967 JCP 1968.II.15531 note J.H.

(¹¹⁰) Below, pp. 75–6.

(¹¹¹) Paris 3 May 1967, GP 1967.2.34 note J.-P D. See similarly Com. 23 Jan 1978, Bull. civ. IV. no. 33 (vehicle not manufactured in the year stated by seller).

(¹¹²) Paris 18 Jan. 1971, GP 1972.1.289 note Kosossey. See also Civ. (1) 21 Mar. 1962, Bull. civ. I no. 174.

(¹¹³) The buyer was held not to have been contributorily negligent in not checking his tyres.

(¹¹⁴) Com. 29 Nov. 1977 Bull. civ. IV no. 284.

(¹¹⁵) Below, p. 76.

(¹¹⁶) E.g. Com. 3 Jan. 1977, GP 1977.2.461 note Planqueel, D 1977 IR 176.

(¹¹⁷) Above, pp. 64–9.

(¹¹⁸) Above, p. 66.

(¹¹⁹) Civ. (3) 2 Oct.1979, D. 1980.IR.224 obs. Larroumet. See also Com. 3 Jan. 1977, D 1977.IR.176.

(¹²⁰) E.g. Com. 15 Apr. 1975, Bull. civ. IV no. 106 (damage to property).

(¹²¹) Above, pp. 66, 70.

(¹²²) Above, p. 72 and below, pp. 461–3 on the present status of this case law.

(¹²³) Civ. (1) 16 Jun. 1966, Bull. civ. I no. 374.

(¹²⁴) This interpretation was based on the Roman position: Dig. 21.1.1.8. For a valuable discussion of these issues, see Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 764 et seq.

(¹²⁵) Above, p. 72.

(¹²⁶) Req. 22 May 1900, DP 1900.1.454; Civ. (1) 21 Jul. 1987, JCP 1987.IV.361 (existence of defect); Com. 16 Nov. 1976, GP 1977.1.Pan. Jur. 43 (seriousness of defect). Cf. above, pp. 40–1.

(¹²⁷) NÎmes 18 Dec. 1980, D 1983.29 note Larroumet.

(¹²⁸) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 164 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 266 .

(¹²⁹) E.g. Com. 16 Nov. 1976, GP 1977.1. Pan. Jur. 43.; Paris 3 Dec. 1976, JCP 1977.II.18579 note Boitard et Dubarry (computer system with teething problems).

(¹³⁰) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 769–70 .

(¹³¹) ‘l´usage auquel on l’a destiné’.

(¹³²) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 266 .

(¹³³) Ghestin, Conformité, 187–89 ; Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 164 ; Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 152 .

(¹³⁴) Req. 31 Jul. 1905, S 1907.1.437; Req. 18 Dec. 1934, GP 1935.1.271.

(¹³⁵) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 267 .

(¹³⁶) E.g. Com. 15 Apr. 1975, Bull. civ. IV no. 89.

(¹³⁷) Above, p. 72.

(¹³⁸) Civ. (1) 24 Nov. 1993, Bull. civ. I no. 347.

(¹³⁹) Above, pp. 68–9.

(¹⁴⁰) Com. 3 Dec. 1980, Bull. civ. IV no. 409 (contractual non-conformity); Com. 9 Dec. 1981, Bull. civ. IV no. 438 (garantie légale); Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 159–60 . It is not enough for a claimant to show the existence of a defect at the time of claiming: Com. 27 Nov. 1984, GP 1985 Pan. Jur. 80 obs. Dupichot; Civ. (1) 22 Jun. 1971, JCP 1971.II. 16881. The issue of the timing of the defect remains in the hands of the juges du fond: e.g. Civ. (1) 28 Nov. 1979, D 1985.485 (1er. esp.) note Huet, D 1980 IR 566 obs. Larroumet.

(¹⁴¹) Com. 24 Jan. 1984, JCP 1984.IV.107. Most authors say that it is the time of contract (de Juglart, Vente, 304 ) but Ghestin and Desché contend that strictly speaking it is the time of the transfer of risk in the property: Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 780 . In most cases, these times will be the same: arts. 1138 and 1624 C. civ.

(¹⁴²) Req. 22 May 1900, DP 1900.1.454.

(¹⁴³) Com. 3 Nov. 1972, GP 1973.1 Pan.jur. 31; Civ. (3) 14 Jun. 1989, Bull. civ. III no. 140. A defect which results from the technical specifications of the buyer will also not be ‘hidden’: Malinvaud, note to Paris 18 Feb. 1977, JCP 1977.II.18675 and cf. Com. 29 Nov. 1977, Bull. civ. IV no. 284, above, p. 74.

(¹⁴⁴) Ghestin, Conformité, 21 and see below, p. 93–5.

(¹⁴⁵) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 771–6 .

(¹⁴⁶) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 154–5 .

(¹⁴⁷) E.g. Seine 21 Dec. 1956, D 1957.47.

(¹⁴⁸) E.g. Civ. (1) 18 Dec. 1962, D 1963.114.

(¹⁴⁹) Com. 30 Nov. 1982, Bull. civ. IV no. 391.

(¹⁵⁰) Com. 4 Nov. 1970, D. 1971.188.

(¹⁵¹) Civ. (3) 3 May 1989, D 1990.117 note Tournafond.

(¹⁵²) De Juglart, Vente, 299 note 1 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 237 ; Com. 12 Feb. 1980, D 1981.278 note Aubertin.

(¹⁵³) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 237–38 .

(¹⁵⁴) Req. 22 May 1900, DP 1900.1.454; Civ. (1) 21 Jul. 1987, JCP 1987.IV.361 (existence of defect); Com. 16 Nov. 1976, GP 1977.1.Pan. Jur. 43 (seriousness of defect); Civ. (1) 7 Jan. 1982, Bull. civ. I no. 8 (hidden nature).

(¹⁵⁵) Above, p. 44.

(¹⁵⁶) E.g. cassation of a decision below where the juges du fond allowed a buyer’s action without identifying how the defect was hidden: Com. 5 Feb. 1974, Bull. civ. IV no. 50.

(¹⁵⁷) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 159 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 278 ; Civ. (1) 13 Dec. 1965, JCP 1966.II.14643. On the significance of this, see above, p. 47.

(¹⁵⁸) Cf. above, pp. 48–50.

(¹⁵⁹) Above, p. 49.

(¹⁶⁰) Note to Com. 10 Dec.1973, JCP 1975.II.17950 and see Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 782 as to the ‘anteriority’ of the defect to the sale.

(¹⁶¹) E.g. Com. 15 May 1972 and Com. 16 Jul. 1973, JCP 1974.II.17864 note Ghestin; Com. 17 Feb. 1976, JCP 1976.II.18482 note Malinvaud; Com. 15 Apr. 1975, Bull. civ. IV no. 106; Reims 3 Jul. 1975, JCP 1976.IV 183 note J. A; Paris 24 Mar. 1982, D 1984.IR.188 obs. Wagner; Com. 12 Dec. 1984, Bull. civ. IV no. 349; Com. 17 Oct. 1977, GP 1978.I.221 note Plancqueel; Civ. (1) 4 Apr. 1991, D 1992 Somm. 201 obs. Tournafond; Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1991, Bull. civ. I no. 201; Civ. (1) 20 Feb. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 86.

(¹⁶²) Art. 484 N.c.pr.civ; R. Genin-Méric, ‘Mesures d’instruction exécutées par un technicien, Intervention du technicien dans l’instruction du litige’ Jur.-Cl. Proc. Civ. Fasc. 660 (1995) . These proceedings are inter partes.

(¹⁶³) Art. 2244 C. civ; below, p. 92.

(¹⁶⁴) Cf. Com. 22 Jan. 1968, D 1968 Somm. 65 where the buyer of a second-hand car had it repaired and the juges du fond rejected his claim on the ground of vice caché as he had not sought in time ‘vérifications contradictoires’.

(¹⁶⁵) Art. 246 N.c.pr.civ.

(¹⁶⁶) Civ. (3) 4 Jan.1979, JCP 1979.IV.79.

(¹⁶⁷) Arts. 1641, 1644–1646, 1648 C. civ.

(¹⁶⁸) However, examples of termination of a contract (résolution) on the ground of non-performance of a seller’s obligation de sécurité may be found in Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1991, Bull. civ. I no. 201 and of a seller’s oblig ation d’information in civ. (1) 25 Jun. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 274.

(¹⁶⁹) See D. Tallon, ‘Remedies: 2. French Report’ in Harris and Tallon, 263–4 . But see below, p. 604 et seq.

(¹⁷⁰) Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, 346 et seq.

(¹⁷¹) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 239 ; Bihl, Vente, 225–6 . Such an order would nor mally be backed by astreintes. This follows the general approach of French law to the availability of orders for specific enforcement of a contract which are available except for cases of physical or ‘moral’ impossibility: Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, 346–8 .

(¹⁷²) E.g. Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 316 .

(¹⁷³) S. Whittaker, ‘Les sanctions de l’inexécution des contrats, Droit anglais’ in Fontaine and Viney, 977 at 1011–16 .

(¹⁷⁴) E.g. Com. 20 Jan. 1976, Bull. civ. IV no. 26.

(¹⁷⁵) Below, p. 86.

(¹⁷⁶) S. Whittakerr, ‘Performance of another’s obligation: French and English law contrasted’ in D. Johnston and R. Zimmermann (eds.), Unjustified Enrichment, Key Issues in Comparative Perspective (CUP, 2002) 433 at 452 .

(¹⁷⁷) Ibid., 448 et seq. The possibility is sometimes referred to as the faculté de remplacement.

(¹⁷⁸) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 242–3 .

(¹⁷⁹) Ibid., at 242 .

(¹⁸⁰) This is often discussed in terms of the availability of réparation en nature: Terré, Simler and Lequette, Obligations, 579–80 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 499 . Some decisions deny réparation en nature in the contractual context: Civ. 4 Jun. 1924, S 1925.1.97, and Civ. 15 Mar. 1948, S. 1948.1.100, though cf. Com. 5 Jul. 1984, Bull. civ. IV, no. 219 (the juges du fond have a ‘sovereign power’ as to the ‘mode de réparation’).

(¹⁸¹) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 316–19 ; J. Gatsi, ‘Vente commerciale, Obligation de délivrance du vendeur, sanction de l’inexécution’ in Jur.-Cl. Contrats Distribution (1999) Fasc. 310, 7 . Contra P. Ancel, ‘La garantie conventionelle des vices cachés dans les conditions générales de vente en matière mobilière,’ RTDCom. (1979) 203, 213 .

(¹⁸²) Below, pp. 616–18.

(¹⁸³) Below, pp. 251–5.

(¹⁸⁴) Above, p. 76.

(¹⁸⁵) Art. 1243 C. civ; Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 757 .

(¹⁸⁶) Art. 110–1 al. 1º C. com.

(¹⁸⁷) Gatsi, op. cit., 12; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 243 .

(¹⁸⁸) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 243 .

(¹⁸⁹) Ghestin, Conformité, 140 & 162 ; Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 232–3 who see this as an example of the exception d’inexécution.

(¹⁹⁰) P. Le Tourneau, ‘Conformités et garanties dans la vente d’objets mobiliers corporels’ RTDCom. (1980) 231, 238–40 .

(¹⁹¹) See generally, Nicholas, 213–16 and Ghestin, Conformité, 138–49 in the context of the obligation de conformité.

(¹⁹²) Com. 16 Jul. 1980, Bull. civ. IV no. 297, RTDCiv. 1981.398 obs. Chabas; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 292 ; Treitel, Remedies, 300 et seq. The issue of seriousness is within the ‘sovereign power of assessment of the juges du fond’: Civ. 26 Nov. 1951, GP 1952.1.72.

(¹⁹³) Treitel, Remedies, 302 .

(¹⁹⁴) Bihl, Vente, 252 . This appears from cases in which a buyer raises the seller’s liability for latent defects by way of defence to an action for the price: e.g. Rennes 30 Apr. 1952, D 1952.588.

(¹⁹⁵) Art. 1184 C. civ. While some jurists refer to the action rédhibitoire as an action for résolution, I shall reserve résolution for termination under art. 1184 C. civ.

(¹⁹⁶) Arts. 1644 & 1646 C. civ. After the courts imposed liability in damages on all vendeurs professionals, the courts have taken a strict view of ‘expenses’, an example in the case of sale of a vehicle being the cost of its carte grise: Bihl, Vente, 256 ; Civ. (1) 4 Feb. 1963, JCP 1963.II.13159 note Savatier.

(¹⁹⁷) Art. 1184 al. 3 C. civ. (résolution); art. 1648 C. civ. (which required an action to be brought within a bref délai). Exceptionally, a consumer buyer of movable property may repudiate the contract by registered letter if the seller fails to deliver the property within seven days of the due date: art. L. 114–1 C. consom.

(¹⁹⁸) Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1980, JCP 1980.IV.326, RTDCom. 1981.351 obs Hémard.

(¹⁹⁹) Com. 22 Jul. 1953, D 1953.587.

(²⁰⁰) Civ. (1) 23 May 1995, Bull. civ. I no. 216, D 1996 Somm. 15 obs. Tournafond.

(²⁰¹) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 303 ; Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1980, Bull. civ. I no. 185.

(²⁰²) De Juglart, Vente, 262 ; Ghestin, Conformité, 194 and see Civ. 27 Nov. 1950, GP 1951.1.132. Technically such a reduction of the price is an award of damages, but it is sometimes termed réfaction after the procedure applicable to commercial sales by which the court may refuse to terminate the sale because the non-performance is not sufficiently serious but then reduce the price: Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 241–2 , e.g. Com 23 Mar. 1971, D 1974.40 note Alter. The Cour de cassation will on occasion quash a decision of a lower court which refuses résolution where it considers this unjustified on the terms of the contract and facts as they have found them: Civ. (1) 1 Dec. 1987, Belgfaazi, Bull. civ. I no. 324, D 1987.IR.262.

(²⁰³) Bihl, Vente, 227 .

(²⁰⁴) Art. 1644 C. civ; Bihl, Vente, 255 .

(²⁰⁵) Art. 1647 C. civ. E.g. Angers 30 Oct. 1951, D 1952.60.

(²⁰⁶) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 817 . If he regains the property through his sub-buyer’s own action rédhibitoire, then his own right to claim the price revives: Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 307 .

(²⁰⁷) Bihl, Vente, 255 ; Civ. (1) 22 Nov. 1988, Bull. civ. I no. 334.

(²⁰⁸) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 801 , citing Civ. (3) 12 Jan. 1988, JCP 1988.IV.109 (seller of land recov ering indemnity for buyer’s occupation). Cf. Civ. (1) 11 Mar. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 74 (no indemnity for use in the case of a private sale of a second-hand car).

(²⁰⁹) Civ. (1) 23 Oct. 1974, D 1975.424; Civ. (1) 4 Oct. 1988, JCP 1988.IV.375, RTDCiv. 1989.539 obs. Mestre.

(²¹⁰) Paris 3 May 1967, GP 1967.2.34 note J.-P. D.

(²¹¹) Bihl, Vente, 263 .

(²¹²) See below, p. 84 et seq. Moreover, the basis for a reduction in price and an award of damages is not identical, as a claim for a reduction in price is proportionate to the price as a whole, which also fixes the ceil ing of recovery; damages are based on the buyer’s loss: Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 311 .

(²¹³) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 305–06 , citing Req. 14 Dec. 1875, S 1877.1.21 (résolution and recovery of the value of the goods sold where they could not be returned) though cf. Paris 3 May 1967, GP 1967.2.34 note J.-P D. in which the buyer attempted to rely on the property’s ‘non-conformity’ to avoid this restriction on the garantie légate, but the court ‘reformulated’ his claim as an action rédhibitoire and thereby kept him to its conditions.

(²¹⁴) Above, p. 82.

(²¹⁵) Civ. (3) 17 Feb. 1988, Bull. civ. III no. 38 (immovable property).

(²¹⁶) Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1980, RTDCom. 1981.349 obs. Hémard; Civ. (1) 7 Jan. 1982, GP. 1982.1 Pan.Jur. 184. Cf. sale of immeubles à construire: art. 1642–1 al. 2. C. civ.

(²¹⁷) Com. 3 Dec. 1975, D 1975.IR.36 (no such agreement found by the juges du fond).

(²¹⁸) Grenoble 2 Oct. 1967, GP 1968.1.Tab. 196.

(²¹⁹) Below, pp. 91 et seq.

(²²⁰) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 425 .

(²²¹) Mazeaud and Chabas, Obligations, 1154 .

(²²²) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 739 .

(²²³) Ibid., 760 ; Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 233 ; Com. 12 Feb. 1980, D 1981.278 note Aubertin.

(²²⁴) Bordeaux 23 May 1977, GP 1978.1.94; cf. Paris 3 May 1967, GP 1967.2.34 note J.-P. D.

(²²⁵) Treitel, Remedies, 400 .

(²²⁶) Above, p. 71.

(²²⁷) Art. 1645 C. civ.

(²²⁸) For an early example, see Civ. 19 Jan. 1965, I’affaire de Pont-Saint-Esprit, D 1965.389. More recently, Civ. (1) 8 Jun. 1999, Bull. civ. I no. 198. The idea that traders of the type of goods in question are liable because they ought to know of their defects may be found in the medieval law and was picked up by Pothier, Vente, 168 ; Zimmermann, Obligations, 334–6 .

(²²⁹) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 342 ; Com. 27 Nov. 1991, JCP 1992.IV.409.

(²³⁰) Above, p. 77.

(²³¹) These propositions result from this liability’s inclusion within the ‘general law’ of liability for non-performance of contract: arts. 1142 and 1147 C. civ. and see Ghestin, Conformité, 194–5 .

(²³²) E.g. Civ. (1) 11 Mar. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 74 (no damages under the garantie légale or under art. 1184 C. civ. against a non-professionnel).

(²³³) Below, p. 94.

(²³⁴) Civ. (1) 12 Mar. 1980, JCP 1980.IV.208.

(²³⁵) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 896–7 ; e.g. Com. 12 Dec. 1984, Bull. civ. IV no. 349.

(²³⁶) For a summary of the proper basis of this assimilation: Bihl, Vente, 258–9 .

(²³⁷) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 328 . In the case of sale of land, some sellers are treated as profes sionals: e.g. property developers: e.g. Civ. (3) 27 Mar. 1969, D 1969.633 note Jestaz. Sellers of newly built property are governed by art. 1646–1 C. civ.

(²³⁸) Bihl, Vente, 257–8 ; Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 326 .

(²³⁹) Com. 12 Dec. 1984, Bull. civ. IV no. 349.

(²⁴⁰) De Juglart, Vente, 311 . For the relative roles of the juges du fond and Cour de cassation for this purpose see Viney and Jourdain, Effets, 125–38 ; Treitel, Remedies, 175–6 .

(²⁴¹) Civ. (1) 24 Nov. 1954, JCP 1955.II.8565.

(²⁴²) Com. 17 Feb. 1987, D 1987.543 note Jourdain.

(²⁴³) De Juglart, Vente, 312 .

(²⁴⁴) Com. 20 Jan. 1971, JCP 1972.II.17280 note Boitard et Rabut (loss of use of property while being repaired).

(²⁴⁵) Below, pp. 97–8.

(²⁴⁶) Bihl, Vente, 262 .

(²⁴⁷) Above, p. 81.

(²⁴⁸) Above, pp. 55–7.

(²⁴⁹) Below, p. 464.

(²⁵⁰) Ghestin, note, Com. 15 Mar. 1976, JCP 1977.II.18632. Some decisions appear to require a claimant to demonstrate how or why the property was defective, i.e. to explain the cause of a defect (e.g. Com 18 Jan. 1984, JCP 1984.IV.97) but these cases are concerned with the question of the timing of the defect: cf. above, p. 76.

(²⁵¹) Civ. (1) 18 Mar.1986, Bull. civ. I no. 75, JCP 1986.IV.155.

(²⁵²) Cf. above, pp. 48–50.

(²⁵³) Huet, Principaux Contrats, 300 . E.g. Civ. (1) 30 Jan. 1996, JCP 1996.IV.689.

(²⁵⁴) Com. 15 Mar. 1976, JCP 1977.II.18632 note Ghestin.

(²⁵⁵) Civ. (1) 4 Dec. 1973, GP 1974.1.444 obs. Planqueel.

(²⁵⁶) Below, pp. 375–6; cf. pp. 389–93.

(²⁵⁷) Above, p. 67.

(²⁵⁸) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 352–6 .

(²⁵⁹) Civ. 17 Nov. 1936, S 1937.1.53 (faute de la victime in the context of liability under art. 1384 al. 1 C. civ.) and see Com. 15 May 1972, JCP 1974.II.17864 note Ghestin.

(²⁶⁰) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 296 .

(²⁶¹) Above, pp. 48–50.

(²⁶²) Civ. (2) 27 Apr. 1979, Dame Remolu, JCP 1979.IV.213.

(²⁶³) Below, pp. 89–90. Cf. Civ. (1) 31 Jan. 1973, D 1973.149 note Schmelck (decision which confused these two grounds of defence quashed).

(²⁶⁴) Com. 17 Feb. 1976, JCP 1976.II.18482 note Malinvaud. Cf. Com. 15 May 1972, JCP 1974.II.17864 note Ghestin.

(²⁶⁵) Above, pp. 76–7.

(²⁶⁶) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 803–04 , who cite as example Paris 12 Apr. 1983, inédit, (company sells metal components made with a mould supplied by the buyer and to its design).

(²⁶⁷) Com. 6 Nov. 1972, GP 1973.1 Pan. Jur. 31 (farmer’s use of pesticide contrary to clear instructions).

(²⁶⁸) Rouen 17 Apr. 1969, GP 1969.2 Somm.31 (alleged fault in buyer in installing defective equipment badly).

(²⁶⁹) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 174–5 .

(²⁷⁰) Above, pp. 67–8.

(²⁷¹) Civ. (1) 4 Feb. 1963, JCP 1963.II.13159 note Savatier. See also Lyon 26 Feb. 1962, GP 1962.1.401; Com. 25 Nov. 1997, Cont., cone, cons. 1998 no. 43 note Leveneur, RTDCiv. 1998.386 obs. Jourdain.

(²⁷²) Bihl, Vente, 245 . Cf above pp. 68–9.

(²⁷³) Above, pp. 67–8.

(²⁷⁴) Above, p. 76.

(²⁷⁵) Paris 18 Jan. 1971, GP 1972.1.289 note Kosossey (failure to check ‘puncture-proof’ vehicle tyres) and see above, p. 74.

(²⁷⁶) Cf. above, p. 87.

(²⁷⁷) Civ. (1) 21 Mar. 1962, Bull civ. I, no. 174.

(²⁷⁸) Civ. (1) 3 Jul. 1985, D 1985.IR.482.

(²⁷⁹) Com. 17 Oct. 1977, GP 1978.1.221 note Plancqueel.

(²⁸⁰) Bénabent, Obligations, 273 . For this view of the law of sale: Larroumet, Contrat, 615–16 ; Nicholas, 56 .

(²⁸¹) Larroumet, Contrat, 615 .

(²⁸²) Above, p. 84.

(²⁸³) Malinvaud, note to Com. 10 Dec. 1973, JCP 1975.II.17950; Huet, ‘Le paradoxe des médicaments et les risques de développement,’ D 1987 Chron. 73, 76–7 ; Bihl, Vente, 259 . Cf. J. Revel, ‘La prevention des accidents domestiques: vers un régime spécifique de responsabilité du fait des produits?’ D 1984 Chron. 69, 71; Civ. (1) 9 July 1996, D 1996.610 note Lambert-Faivre.

(²⁸⁴) Com. 15 Nov. 1971, D 1971.211. See also Com. 27 Apr. 1971, JCP 1972.II.17280 note Boitard et Rabut; Rouen 22 Feb. 1974, D 1974 Somm. 68.

(²⁸⁵) See similarly Civ. (3) 7 Mar. 1990, JCP 1990.IV.174 (liability of ‘builder’).

(²⁸⁶) Above, pp. 57–8.

(²⁸⁷) Terré, Simler and Lequette, Obligations, 558–61 and e.g. Civ. 20 Nov. 1968, GP 1969.1.119.

(²⁸⁸) Mazeaud and Chabas, Obligations, 667–8 and see e.g. Poitiers 16 Dec. 1970, GP 1971.1.264; Civ. (1) 12 Apr. 1995, JCP 1995.II.22467 note Jourdain, below, p. 150.

(²⁸⁹) Malinvaud, note to Com. 10 Dec. 1973, JCP 1975.II.17950.

(²⁹⁰) Above, p. 88.

(²⁹¹) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 361–2 . See, e.g., Civ. (3) 26 Oct. 1977, GP 1978.1.339 note Planqueel (action brought under art. 1721 C. civ).

(²⁹²) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 333 . Cf. Civ. (1) 16 Jul. 1971, GP 1971.2.810 in which garage A repaired a motorbike and sold it to garage B, which failed to notice the fault, and then resold it to C, a pri vate individual. C drove the motorbike and injured D, whose action in delict under art. 1382 C. civ. was successful against both A and B jointly.

(²⁹³) Below, pp. 96–7.

(²⁹⁴) Huet, Principaux contracts spéciaux, 334 .

(²⁹⁵) Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1979, GP 1980.1.249 note Planqueel, D 1980.IR.222 obs. Larroumet. The Cour de cassation quashed their decision, though on the basis of the classification of liability.

(²⁹⁶) Civ. (1) 18 Mar. 1986, Bull. civ. I no. 75.

(²⁹⁷) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 157 .

(²⁹⁸) Below, p. 583.

(²⁹⁹) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 277 . Ghestin suggested that the ‘brief delay’ should commence when the buyer should have discovered it: Conformité, 34 .

(³⁰⁰) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 158 ; Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 305 ; Civ. (3) 14 Jun. 1989, Bull. civ. III no. 140; Com. 15 Nov. 1971, D 1972.211. Some older cases held that the starting point of the href délai was entirely within the ‘sovereign power of assessment’ of the juges du fond: Ghestin, Conformité, 33 ; Civ. 11 Dec. 1884, DP 1885.1.357, S 1886.1.149; Civ. (1) 15 Dec. 1982, GP 1983 Pan. Jur. 120.

(³⁰¹) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 158 . Com. 12 Mar. 1979, Bull. civ. IV no. 98; Civ. (1) 11 Jan. 1989, Bull. civ. I no. 12, RTDCom. 1989.711 obs. Bouloc.

(³⁰²) Art. 2244 C. civ. (amended by loi no. 85–677 of 5 Jul. 1985, art. 37); Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 791, 795 . Once the bref délai was interrupted in this way, the rules of prescription of the ‘general law’ apply: Civ. (1) 21 Oct. 1997, D 1998.409 note Bruschi.

(³⁰³) Com. 19 Mar. 1974, D 1975.628 note Malinvaud; Com. 17 Dec. 1973, GP 1974.1.429 note Planqueel, JCP 1975.II.17912 note Savatier and see below, p. 967. Where a seller was being prosecuted for tromperie or falsification in respect of the same facts from which the buyer’s claim arises, the latter was justified in waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings before suing in the civil court: Civ. (1) 15 Dec. 1982, GP 1983 Pan. Jur. 12.

(³⁰⁴) Civ. (3) 2 Feb. 1999, Cont., cone, cons., 1999 no. 71 note Leveneur (9 years).

(³⁰⁵) D. Mainguy, ‘Propos dissidents sur la transposition de la directive du 25 mai 1999 sur certains aspects de la vente et des garanties des biens de consommation’ JCP 2002.I.183 at 2110.

(³⁰⁶) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 785–6 (with copious citations).

(³⁰⁷) De Juglart, Vente, 313 .

(³⁰⁸) Civ. (1) 11 Mar. 1980, JCP 1980.IV.208.

(³⁰⁹) E.g., M. Troplong, Le droit civil expliqué, De la vente (3rd. edn., 1837) Tome 2, Table between 14 and 15, who notes the various customary periods concerning ‘special redhibitory defects’ in livestock.

(³¹⁰) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 265 .

(³¹¹) Above, p. 72.

(³¹²) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 294 ; Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 158–9 .

(³¹³) Bénabent, Obligations, 592 ; Civ. (1) 13 Nov. 1996, JCP 1997.IV6.

(³¹⁴) Paris 3 May 1967, GP 1967.2.34 note J.-P. D.

(³¹⁵) Cf. below, p. 106 for similar techniques in the law of construction.

(³¹⁶) The following are examples of recourse to the ‘general law’ of contract where prescription was in issue: for contractual ‘non-conformity’: Com. 3 Jan. 1971, JCP 1973.II.17300 note Leloup; Civ. (1) 9 Mar. 1983, JCP 1984.II.20295 note Courbe; Ass Plén. 7 Feb. 1986, JCP 1986.II.20616 note Malinvaud, D 1986.293 note Bénabent; Civ. (1) 8 Nov. 1988, JCP 1989.IV.15; Com. 22 May 1991, D 1991 Somm. 200 obs. Tournafond; for obligation de sécurite: Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1991, D 1991.IR.56, RTDCiv. 1992.114 obs. Jourdain.

(³¹⁷) Art. 2262 C. civ; art. 110–4 C. com. (which excepts those cases where a shorter period obtains).

(³¹⁸) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 208 (obligation to deliver conforming property).

(³¹⁹) Larroumet, Contrat, 658 . Exemption clauses appear to have come into practice in France as a result of their use by the English merchant navy and this added little to the favour with which they were viewed: J.E. Labbé, ‘Nouvelle communication sur les clauses de non responsabilité particulièrement dans les connaissement’, in Annales de droit commercial (1886–7) Correspondance, 251 at 252 .

(³²⁰) P. Delebecque and D. Mazeaud, ‘Les clauses de responsabilité: clauses de non responsabilité, clauses limitatives de réparation, clauses pénales, Rapport francais’, in Fontaine and Viney, 361. Apart from the techniques mentioned in the text, exemption clauses must be ‘accepted’ by the other party (Civ. (1) 28 Apr. 1971, JCP 1971.IV.148) and are interpreted strictly: Civ. (1) 31 Mar. 1954, D 1954.417; Civ. (3) 19 Oct. 1971, JCP 1971.IV.267.

(³²¹) Above, p. 85.

(³²²) Art. 1643 C. civ. Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 292 .

(³²³) Terré, Simler, and Lequette, Obligations, 596–9 ; Larroumet, Contrat, 661–2 .

(³²⁴) Loi no. 78–23 of 10 Jan. 1978, art. 35; Déc. 78–464 of 24 Mar. 1978, art. 2. The administration’s general failure to exercise this power led to its being taken over by the courts: Civ. (1) 14 May 1991, D 1991.449 note Ghestin. Since the creation of the C. consom. the courts have enjoyed a general power to strike out unfair contract terms in consumer contracts, the relevant provision being amended in 1995 to give effect to the EC Dir. 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts: art. L. 132–1 C. consom. The décret of 1978 has not been rescinded.

(³²⁵) Civ. (1) 24 Nov. 1954, JCP 1955.II.8565 note H.B; Civ. (3) 27 Mar. 1969, D 1969.633 note Jestaz.

(³²⁶) Loi no. 77–1137 of 22 Dec. 1972, art. 8–1-e, amended in 1989 to take account of Dir. 85/577/EEC of 20 Dec. 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises and now contained in art. L. 121–23 C. consom.

(³²⁷) For the French approach see Civ. (1) 23 Feb. 1999, Bull. civ. I no. 59; Civ. (1) 5 Mar. 2002, Bull civ. I no. 78; Civ. (1) 22 May 2002, Bull. civ. I no. 143. For the position under the 1993 Directive (arguatur) see Chitty on Contracts paras. 15–022—15–023 arguing from France v Di Pinto Case 361/89 of 14 March 1991 [1991] ECR I–1189; Benincasa v Dentalkit Case C-269/95 of 3 July 1997 [1997] ECR I-03767. While in the French context it had been argued that a ‘non-professional’ (as distinct from a consumer) is a person who enters a contract in a course of a business but not within ‘the same speciality’ as his contractual partner, this interpretation is not now followed by French courts, who therefore treat ‘consumer’ and ‘non-profes sional’ as synonymous: see Civ. (1) 3 & 30 Jan. 1996, JCP 1996.II.22664; Larroumet, Contrat, 403–07 and G. Paisant, ‘A la recherche du consommateur: Pour en finir avec l’actuelle confusion née de l’application du critère du “rapport direct”’ JCP 2003.I.121.

(³²⁸) Below, pp. 576, 591.

(³²⁹) Above, p. 76.

(³³⁰) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 293.

(³³¹) Art. 132–1 al. 7 C. consom.

(³³²) Civ. (3) 27 Mar. 1969, D 1969.633 note Jestaz; Com. 17 Dec. 1973, GP 1974.1.429 note Planqueel, JCP 1975.II.17912 note Savatier; Com. 27 Nov. 1991, Bull. civ. IV no. 367, JCP 1992.IV.409. The issue is for the juges du fond to decide: Civ. (1) 20 Feb. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 86, Cont. cone. cons. 1996.96 note Leveneur.

(³³³) Com. 8 Oct. 1973, JCP 1975.II.17927 note Ghestin; Com. 3 Feb. 1998, Bull. civ. IV no. 60.

(³³⁴) Above, p. 77.

(³³⁵) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 294 .

(³³⁶) Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 392.

(³³⁷) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 293 .

(³³⁸) P. Le Tourneau, ‘Conformités et garanties dans la vente d’objets mobiliers corporels,’ RTDCom. 1980.231 at 267 ; Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 928 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 241 . Important decisions in this respect include Civ. (1) 20 Dec. 1988, JCP 1989.II.21354 note Virassamy (no need for buyer to be ‘of same speciality’); Civ. (1) 24 Nov. 1993, JCP 1994.II.22334 note Leveneur.

(³³⁹) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 928–32 esp. at 928. Cf. Com. 3 Apr. 1990, Bull. civ. IV no. 108.

(³⁴⁰) Viney and Joudain, Conditions, 435–7 .

(³⁴¹) Below, pp. 581–2.

(³⁴²) Arts. 1119–1121, 1165 C. civ.

(³⁴³) S. Whittaker, ‘Privity of Contract and the Law of Tort: the French Experience’ (1995) 15 OJLS 327 and see above, pp. 28–9.

(³⁴⁴) Civ. 12 Nov. 1884, S 1886.1.149, DP 1885.1.357; Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1979, affaire Lamborghini D 1980.IR.222 note Larroumet, GP 1980.1.249 note Planqueel. For an extended discussion of the various analyses: Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 1046 et seq.

(³⁴⁵) Art. 1165 C. civ.

(³⁴⁶) Ayant cause à titre particulier (i.e. successor in title to a particular right or thing) as distinct from ayant cause à titre universel (i.e. general successor in title, such as the legal heir): Nicholas, 172 .

(³⁴⁷) Civ. (1) 8 Jun. 1999, Bull. civ. I no. 198, (even where a manufacturer delivers products directly to its sub-buyer, the intermediate buyer remains liable as vendeur professionnel). A person who commissions or who acquires a building possesses an action directe against a number of those involved in the construction, these contractual liabilities beyond privity possessing a legislative basis: see arts. 1792 et seq. C. civ. and below, p. 104.

(³⁴⁸) Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1979, affaire Lamborghini, D 1980.IR.222 obs. Larroumet, GP 1980.1.249 note Planqueel; Civ. (1) 6 Jul. 1988, Bull. civ. I no. 231, below, pp. 546–9.

(³⁴⁹) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 1026 et seq.

(³⁵⁰) Above, pp. 27–9 and Civ. (2) 30 Nov. 1988, Bull. civ. II no. 240.

(³⁵¹) Art. 1386–1 C. civ.

(³⁵²) C. Jamin, ‘Une restauration de l’effet relatif du contrat,’ DS Chron 1991 257, 259.

(³⁵³) Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 1036 .

(³⁵⁴) Jamin, op. cit. n. 352, 259 .

(³⁵⁵) Above, p. 84. On claims for termination of the contract see cf. above, p. 79, n. 168.

(³⁵⁶) G. Viney, ‘L’indemnisation des atteintes à la sécurité des consommateurs en droit français’, in Ghestin, Sécurité des consommateurs, 71 esp. at 74–6 .

(³⁵⁷) Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1979, affaire Lamborghini, D 1980.IR.222 obs. Larroumet, GP 1980.1.249 note Planqueel.

(³⁵⁸) Above, p. 92.

(³⁵⁹) For further discussion: Whittaker, op. cit . n. 343, 348–51.

(³⁶⁰) Above, pp. 73–4, 77.

(³⁶¹) Civ. (1) 3 Dec. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 440. While decided as a matter of ‘contractual non-conformity’, the particularity of a buyer’s purpose is equally relevant to claims under the garantie légate: above, pp. 74–5.

(³⁶²) Civ. (1) 28 Nov.1979, D 1985.484 note Huet (sale); Civ. (3) 20 Apr.1982, JCP 982 IV 230 (responsabilité décennale); Ghestin and Desché, Vente, 1039 .

(³⁶³) Below, p. 549.

(³⁶⁴) Above, pp. 70–1.

(³⁶⁵) Above, p. 95.

(³⁶⁶) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 295–6 .

(³⁶⁷) So, e.g., where a clause de garantie provides that a guarantee will extend for 10 years, the href délai does not apply: Com. 2 May 1990, Bull. civ. IV no. 132, RTDCiv.1991.136 obs. Rémy.

(³⁶⁸) The following is principally drawn from P. Ancel, ‘La garantie conventionnelle des vices cachés dans les conditions générales de vente en matière mobilière’ RTDCom. 1979.203 . See also Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 354 et seq.

(³⁶⁹) Com. 28 Jun. 1994, Bull. civ. IV no. 248.