(B) Other liabilities arising in the context of hire

French courts have not extended the benefit of the liabilities arising for breach of the various contractual obligations in hire beyond the parties by action directe.¹³⁴ This means that in principle any third party to the contract may sue in delict, whether on the basis of fault¹³⁵ or, as regards the hire of buildings, the presumption of liability imposed on their owners by article 1386 of the Civil Code in the case of their ‘ruin’.¹³⁶ By contrast, any claim by a third party to a contract of hire of movable property brought under article 1384 alinéa 1 of the Code is likely to be focused on the hirer who is more likely to qualify as its gardien than the owner,¹³⁷ leaving the hirer to claim an indemnity on one of the bases of owner’s liability which I have just outlined. The only exception to this traditional approach to the domain of contractual liability is found in the case of contracts for the hire of residential property, where French courts have extended the benefit of the liabilities imposed on an owner to the tenant for the benefit of other persons who live on the premises by way of implied stipulation pour autrui.¹³⁸

Conversely, a hirer may sue persons other than the owner in respect of harm caused by the property, but only in delict.¹³⁹ So, for example, a tenant of premises cannot sue their (p.112) ‘builder’ under the special regime of liability already described,¹⁴⁰ nor the manufacturer of any defective materials used in the building by way of a contractual action directe, since any rights in the owner of the property against the manufacturer arising under the law of sale are not transmitted under the contract of hire.¹⁴¹ Any claim by a hirer in delict against a builder or supplier would typically rest on proof of fault, given that the hirer is likely to become gardien of the property as a result of the contract.¹⁴²

To conclude, apart from any claims under French law’s implementation of the Product Liability Directive, for a person who hires property the best chance of recovery for loss caused by the property will be against the owner, but this will in general require proof that the property required repair or possesses hidden defects. The hirer’s claims against any other person will usually rest on the proof of delictual fault.

Notes:

(¹) Above, pp. 51–61.

(²) Above, Chap. 4.

(³) For compensation for accidents at work, see above, pp. 61–2.

(⁴) Below, Chap. 7.

(⁵) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 338–40 .

(⁶) Above, pp. 27–8.

(⁷) An important example of this category used to be found in the case of doctors and dentists, on which see below, pp. 142–4, 151–3.

(⁸) TGI Poitiers 7 Jan. 1969, D 1969.174 note Pradel; Poitiers 16 Dec. 1970, GP 1971.1.264 obs. Méméteau. The botulism could not constitute force majeure as it was not ‘exterior to the thing’: cf. above, p. 90. The court did not distinguish between the various customers who suffered from the poisoning on the basis of who paid the bill.

(⁹) Poitiers 16 Dec. 1970, cit.

(¹⁰) Civ. (1) 4 Oct. 1967, D 1967.652.

(¹¹) Cf. Civ. (2) 5 May 1959, JCP 1959.II.11159 (manufacturer held liable to the customer injured by a permanent wave lotion on the basis of fault under arts. 1382–3 C. civ).

(¹²) Above, pp. 96–8.

(¹³) Very similar issues arise in relation to someone who installs but does not sell a product. An installer working under a contrat d’entreprise (rather than as an employee) owes an obligation de moyens to the cus tomer as to the quality and safety of the work (Lyon 2 Jul. 1975, JCP 1975.IV.339) and on the basis of delictual fault under arts. 1382–3 C. civ. to third parties (Civ. (2) 8 Jun. 1979, DS 1980.563 note Espagnon, D 1980 IR 33 obs. Larroumet) even where the claimant is the commissioner of construction work and the installer is a sub-contractor: Ass. Plén. 12 Jul. 1991, arrêt Besse, JCP 1991.II.21743 note Viney (which concerned the analogous case of a plumber).

(¹⁴) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 471 ; Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 489–90 .

(¹⁵) Civ. (1) 18 Jul. 1972, Bull. civ. II no. 189.

(¹⁶) Durry, RTDCiv. 1983.142 obs. to Douai 5 Feb. 1982.

(¹⁷) Civ. (1) 16 May 1960, D 1960.737 note Tunc. Other courts have used the technique of obligation d’information in order to impose liability on a garage repairer: Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 341, 343 .

(¹⁸) Durry, op. cit. n. 16 .

(¹⁹) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 339 .

(²⁰) Civ. (1) 22 Jun. 1983, Bull. civ. I no. 181, RTDCiv. 1984.119, obs. Rémy; and see similarly also Civ. (1) 9 Jun. 1993, Cont., conc., cons. 1993.205 note Leveneur; Civ. (1) 8 Dec. 1998, Bull. civ. I no. 343 (liability to client, referring to a presumption of fault and of causation).

(²¹) Above, pp. 96–8, below, p. 104.

(²²) Com. 25 May 1982, JCP 1982.IV.276.

(²³) Above, pp. 60–1.

(²⁴) E.g. Civ. (1) 16 May 1960, D 1960.737 note Tunc (contract).

(²⁵) Above, pp. 60–1.

(²⁶) Above, p. 53.

(²⁷) G. Viney ‘La responsabilité des entreprises prestataires de conseil,’ JCP 1975.I.2750; A. Bénabent, ‘Contrat d’entreprise’ Jur.-Cl. Contrats Distribution (1992) Fasc. 425, no. 139, p. 18 ; D. Veaux, ‘Contrats de conseil’ Jur.-Cl. Contrats Distribution (1992) Fasc. 430, 21 & 23 .

(²⁸) Below, pp. 104–8.

(²⁹) Civ. (3) 6 Dec. 1972, D 1973.IR.7 (cassation of decision holding bureau d’études liable as seller of a plan on the basis that such a person is liable only for hidden defects). Cf. below, pp. 69 et seq.

(³⁰) Arts. 1382–3 C. civ. There is an exception where the claimant has bought the product from the person who commissioned the design, where the action has been held contractual: Civ. (1) 21 Jan. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 18.

(³¹) Above, p. 51.

(³²) Where either of these elements are supplied, the courts apply the rules governing the law of sale or sometimes impose an obligation de résultat which comes to a very similar result: see Huet, Responsabilité du vendeur, 102–09 ; Veaux, op. cit., 22–3 .

(³³) According to its website (www.bureauveritas.com), the Bureau Veritas, a commercial company, also offers services ‘in the areas of Conformity Assessment’ relating, inter alia, to industry, consumer products, health and food.

(³⁴) In this respect, its position has been compared by one writer to the Lloyd’s Register: Veaux, op. cit. n. 27, 17 .

(³⁵) Ibid.

(³⁶) Paris 12 Dec. 1968, Navire ‘Emergo’ Dr. mar. fr. 1969.223 note Le Clère (though the court found that these conditions were not satisfied on the facts).

(³⁷) Crim. 30 May 1980, Bull. crim. no. 166, Dr. mar. fr. 1981.146.

(³⁸) Below, p. 372 et seq.

(³⁹) On the role of the partie civile, see below, pp. 380–7.

(⁴⁰) See the criticisms in E. Langavant and P. Boisson, ‘L’affaire du naufrage de la drague “Cap-de-la-Hague” et le problème de la responsabilité des sociétés de classification’ Dr. mar. fr. 1981.131 .

(⁴¹) This results from reform to the law of involuntary homicide, below, pp. 387–93.

(⁴²) Above, Chap. 4.

(⁴³) Above, pp. 52 et seq. E.g. Civ. (1) 21 Jan. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 18.

(⁴⁴) Above, p. 54.

(⁴⁵) Above, p. 51.

(⁴⁶) Another reason could be where the fault is clearly established by a criminal court and the claimant can sim ply join these proceedings as partie civile: see Crim. 30 May 1980, Dr. mar. fr. 1981.146 and below, pp. 380–7.

(⁴⁷) Art. 1792 C. civ. This provision was expressed as a consequence of the contrat d’entreprise between the builder and client.

(⁴⁸) Art. 1792–4 C. civ. This provision is difficult and somewhat obscure: see for further discussion, G. Liet-Veaux, ‘Construction, Diverse garanties légales: généralités. Ouvrages, travaux et personnes en cause’ , Jur.-Cl. Civ., Arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 6 (2002) 30.

(⁴⁹) Art. 1792–1 C. civ. created by loi no. 78–12 of 4 Jan. 1978 relative à la responsabilité et l’assurance dans le domaine de la construction (‘loi of 1978’). On the range of those liable see Liet-Veaux, op. cit. , Jur.-Cl. Civ., Arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 6, 23 et seq.

(⁵⁰) Civ. (1) 9 Apr. 1962, Bull civ. I no. 201 (bureau d’études held liable for design defects in a heating system). For the general position, see above, p. 102.

(⁵¹) Art. 1792 al. 1 C. civ. and see above, pp. 95–8. This transmissibility does not apply to liability for fail ure in the obligation de parfait achèvement, below, p. 105.

(⁵²) Arts. L. 241–1 C. assur. The duty to insure is backed by criminal sanctions: art. L. 243–7 al. 2 C. assur.

(⁵³) This is termed la réception: art. 1792–6 C. civ. Before acceptance, liability arises only under the general law of delictual or contractual liability: e.g. Aix 11 Jan. 1962, D 1962.496.

(⁵⁴) The requirement of a latent defect is not found in the legislation, but is universally acknowledged: G. Liet-Veaux, ‘Construction, Responsabilité décennale, dommages couverts’, Jur.-Cl. Civ., Arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 7 (2004) 2 et seq.

(⁵⁵) Art. 1792 al. 1. C. civ.

(⁵⁶) Liet-Veaux, op. cit. n. 54 , Jur.-Cl. Civ., Arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 7, 6.

(⁵⁷) Civ. (3) 15 Oct. 1970, Bull. civ. III no. 514.

(⁵⁸) Civ. (3) 22 Feb. 1978, JCP 1978.IV.135.

(⁵⁹) Art. 1792 al. 2 C. civ. (referring to cause étrangère); art. 1792–2 al. 1 C. civ. The terminology of ‘presumption of liability is reminiscent of that used by the arrêt Jand’heur, above, p. 52.

(⁶⁰) Above, pp. 89–91.

(⁶¹) Civ. (3) 17 May 1983, Bull. civ. III no. 115. The advice was given by the Centre scientifique et technique du bâtiment, an établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial.

(⁶²) Civ. (3) 21 Dec. 1982, JCP 1983.IV.80.

(⁶³) Art. 1792–3 C. civ.

(⁶⁴) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 376 .

(⁶⁵) Art. 1792–5 C. civ. Cf. above, pp. 93–5 (sale).

(⁶⁶) Art. 1792–6 al. 2 C. civ.

(⁶⁷) Art. 1792–6 al. 4 C. civ. Cf. art. 1144 C. civ.

(⁶⁸) Above, pp. 73, 86–91.

(⁶⁹) Above, pp. 91–3.

(⁷⁰) Above, pp. 91–2, 93.

(⁷¹) Cf. above, pp. 64, 69–72.

(⁷²) Civ. (3) 10 Apr. 1996, Bull. civ. III no. 100, RTDCiv. 1996.918 obs. Jourdain, D 1997 Somm. 349 note Tournafond.

(⁷³) Civ. (3) 4 Oct. 1989, L’Harmet, Bull. civ. III no. 178, JCP 1989.IV.385; Civ. (3) 13 Apr. 1988, JCP 1989.II.21315 note Martin.

(⁷⁴) Civ. (3) 10 Mar. 1981, Bull. civ. III no. 49, GP 1981.1.694 note Leneveu.

(⁷⁵) The courts sometimes use the phrase that the delictual provisions of the Code ‘reprennent leur empire’.

(⁷⁶) Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1962, D 1963.1 note Liet-Veaux. It would seem that the employer himself would be the gardien of the premises so as to exclude any claim against a builder on this basis: see Civ. (3) 21 Feb. 1984, GP 1984.2.Pan.Jur. 180 obs. Jestaz (employer held liable under art. 1384 al. 1 C. civ. to neighbour).

(⁷⁷) Defects of this type are sometimes termed ‘vices intermédiaires’: Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 377 .

(⁷⁸) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 474–5 e.g. Civ. (3) 10 Jul. 1978, JCP 1979.II.19130, note Liet-Veaux, GP 1979.I.122 note A. Planqueel.

(⁷⁹) Civ. (3) 16 Oct. 2002, Bull. civ. III no. 205; Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 377 .

(⁸⁰) This exclusion stems from art. 1792–1’s definition of ‘builders’. An exception is found in the position of manufacturers of prefabricated components under art. 1792–4 C. civ, see above, p. 104.

(⁸¹) Ass. plén. 7 Feb. 1986, D 1986.293 note Bénabent (liability based on ‘contractual non-conformity’); Civ. (1) 21 Jan. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 18. Cf. Civ. (3) 28 Nov. 2001, Bull. civ. III no. 137, RTDCiv. 2002.104 obs. Jourdain.

(⁸²) Ass. plén. 12 Jul. 1991, arrêt Besse, JCP 1991.II.21743 note Viney.

(⁸³) Art. 2270–1 al. 1 C. civ.

(⁸⁴) Loi of 1978, arts. 8–11; Liet-Veaux, op. cit. n. 48 , Jur.-Cl. Civ., arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 6, 29–30. The origins of this sort of control of buildings can be traced to 1929, but before the loi of 1978 the role of contrôleurs techniques was primarily to give advice to insurers: B. Boubli, ‘Contrat d’entreprise’, in Encyclopédie Dalloz, Civil (2003) 32 .

(⁸⁵) Loi of 1978, art. 8.

(⁸⁶) Ibid. , art. 11; art. R. 111–38 et seq. C. constr. et hab. which makes inspection compulsory for buildings open to the public whose capacity exceeds 300 persons, for very tall buildings and for non-industrial buildings with special technical difficulties.

(⁸⁷) Loi of 1978, art. 9. See, e.g., Paris 29 Jan. 1987, D 1988.Somm.115, RGAT 1987.233 obs. Bigot.

(⁸⁸) Civ. (3) 30 Mar. 1989, Soc. Sopire Intermarché, JCP 1989.IV.206.

(⁸⁹) Liet-Veaux, op. cit. n. 48 , Jur.-Cl. Civ., Arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 6, 29.

(⁹⁰) In one case, a manufacturer had asked the advice of a contrôleur technique only because this was a condition of obtaining the benefit of a particular group insurance: the report states somewhat enigmatically that the court held that the contrôleur was under no obligation de conseil to the manufacturer: Civ. (3) 3 Jan. 1980, GP 1980.1.Pan.Jur.225.

(⁹¹) Loi of 1978, art. 10.

(⁹²) Cf. below, p. 133.

(⁹³) For further discussion, see Liet-Veaux, op. cit. n. 48 , Jur.-Cl. Civ., Arts. 1788–94, Fasc. 6, 32–34 and, e.g., Civ. (3) 31 Mar. 1978, Bull. civ. III no. 142.

(⁹⁴) Huet, Principaux Contrats spéciaux, 338, 349 .

(⁹⁵) In particular, French legislation has given very considerable protection to tenants of premises, whether residential, agricultural or commercial: Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 378 et seq.

(⁹⁶) For liability for dol, see above, p. 64. As to breach of an obligation d’information, see de Juglart, Principaux Contrats, 442 ; Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 425 .

(⁹⁷) Paris 17 Jan. 1905, D 1907.2.97 note Planiol; Civ. (2) 7 Jan. 1955, JCP1955.IV.22.

(⁹⁸) In the case of immovable property, ‘delivery’ as required by art. 1719 1° C. civ. is understood in the broad sense of putting the property into the possession of the hirer.

(⁹⁹) Arts. 1719 1° and 1720 al. 1 C. civ.

(¹⁰⁰) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 424 and see below, p. 109.

(¹⁰¹) De Juglart, Principaux contrats, 432 .

(¹⁰²) Such a term is known as a clause de location ‘en l’état’: Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 229 .

(¹⁰³) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 424–5 who note that the normal exceptions made to the effectiveness of exemption clauses apply (notably, where a party has committed dol) and that for resi dential tenancies the premises must fulfill minimum standards of comfort and fitness for habitation: loi no. 89–462 of 6 Jul. 1989, art. 6(a) and, where it is a person’s principal residence, it must provide ‘a decent home’ (un logement décent): art. 1719 1° C. civ. (as amended in 2000). Any such exclusion may be ineffec tive as a clause abusive if the contract of hire constitutes a consumer contract within the meaning of art. L. 132–1 C. consom.

(¹⁰⁴) The obligation is personal and does not bind the owner’s successors in title: de Juglart, Principaux Contrats, 434 .

(¹⁰⁵) Art. 1719 2° C. civ.

(¹⁰⁶) Art. 1720 al. 2 C. civ.

(¹⁰⁷) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 425 .

(¹⁰⁸) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 230 ; Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 426 . An old exam ple is Req. 19 Jan. 1863, S 1863.1.185. Again, a lessor of residential premises may not exclude his duty to make those repairs which are necessary to maintain them in the normal state of repair of rented accommo dation: loi no. 89–462 of 6 Jul. 1989, art. 6(c).

(¹⁰⁹) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 724–5 .

(¹¹⁰) Civ. (1) 14 Dec. 1966, D 1967.340 (tenant’s small child injured).

(¹¹¹) Civ. (3) 29 Apr. 1987, GP 1987.2.Pan. Jur.164, RTDCiv. 1988.149 obs. Rémy.

(¹¹²) Art. 1721 C. civ.

(¹¹³) De Juglart, Principaux Contrats, 439 .

(¹¹⁴) Above, pp. 76–7.

(¹¹⁵) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 717 .

(¹¹⁶) Above, p. 72.

(¹¹⁷) Art. 1641 C. civ. and see above, p. 75.

(¹¹⁸) De Juglart, Principaux contrats, 439 .

(¹¹⁹) Art. 1721 C. civ; Huet, Principaux contrats, 758 .

(¹²⁰) Above, p. 84.

(¹²¹) Above, pp. 89–91.

(¹²²) Civ. (3) 26 Oct. 1977, D 1978 IR 41.

(¹²³) Above, p. 90.

(¹²⁴) Huet, Principaux contrats, 759–61 e.g. Civ. (1) 25 Jan. 1961, JCP 1962.II.12429 (action by injured husband of tenant on basis of implied stipulation pour autrui).

(¹²⁵) The courts take a strict interpretation to such a clause: see Civ. (1) 25 Jan. 1961, JCP 1962.II.12429.

(¹²⁶) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 429 . However, where a contract of hire constitutes a consumer contract within the meaning of art. L. 132–1 C. consom., an exemption of liability may consti tute a clause abusive. Again an exception to the general position exists for residential tenancies where no exclusion of liability for latent defects is permitted: loi no. 89–462 of 6 Jul. 1989, art. 6(c).

(¹²⁷) The period is therefore in principle for 30 years, 10 years where either party is a commerçant, above, pp. 34 and 91–3.

(¹²⁸) Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 231 .

(¹²⁹) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 427 ; Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 232 .

(¹³⁰) De Juglart, Principaux contrats, 440–2 ; Huet, Principaux contrats, 761–2 . For the rejection of an obligation de sécurité independent of the owner’s liabilities imposed by the Code: Civ. (3) 29 Apr. 1987, Lecreux, JCP 1987.IV.221, GP 1987.2 Pan. Jur. 164. Bénabent, Contrats spéciaux, 232 , notes the possibility of liability under French law’s implementation of the Product Liability Directive.

(¹³¹) Above, p. 72.

(¹³²) De Juglart, Principaux contrats, 441 ; Civ. 4 Jun. 1959, S 1961.329 note Planqueel.

(¹³³) Civ. (2) 2 Dec. 1998, RTDCiv. 1999.407 obs. Jourdain.

(¹³⁴) Huet, Principaux contrats, 762–4 . Eg. Civ.(1) 11 Oct. 1967, D 1968.106, RTDCiv. 1968.362 obs. Durry.

(¹³⁵) Arts. 1382–3 C. civ. and e.g. Paris 8 Feb. 1896, D 1896.2.457 note Planiol.

(¹³⁶) Above, p. 26.

(¹³⁷) Above, p. 53.

(¹³⁸) E.g. Civ (1) 25 Jan. 1961, JCP 1962.II.12429.

(¹³⁹) Malaurie, Aynès and Gautier, Contrats spéciaux, 429 .

(¹⁴⁰) Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1962, D 1963.1 note Liet-Veaux, RTDCiv. 1963.332, obs. Tunc; Civ. (3) 25 Jan. 1989, Moreau, JCP 1989.IV.111, RTDCiv. 1989.551 obs. Jourdain.

(¹⁴¹) Above, p. 111.

(¹⁴²) Ibid.