Understand the legal framework for warranty against hidden defects in real estate sales, including actions for damages and the impact of exclusion clauses.
Extract
[...] In this case, the lack of waterproofing of the roof of the house causes disorders to Pierre to the extent that due to a light downpour the house takes in water, and damages his belongings stored inside. Finally, this action can only be brought within a period of 2 years from the discovery of the defect (article 1648 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code; Cass. ch. mixte July 2023, n°21-17.789), and this within a deadline of 20 years from the sale (Cass. [...]
[...] Had he been aware of it, Pierre would not have contracted, at the risk of damaging his musical equipment stored in the house. In addition, the defect was prior to the sale and renders the house unsuitable for its use in that it is impossible to live peacefully in it due to the potential future damage caused by its roof. In fact, the Court of Cassation considered that the defect in waterproofing of a roof-terrace (Cass. civ. 3and March 2006, n°04-20.736) and the disorders of a dwelling making it non-conform to the sought purpose (Cass. [...]
[...] Therefore, when the profane seller had knowledge of the defect, the clause cannot produce any effect. Therefore, the clause will not produce any effect, so the seller will be held liable for the defects. On Sanctions In the context of a warranty action for latent defects, two sanctions are possible, namely: the redhibitory action by which the buyer returns the thing and is fully reimbursed; the estimatory action allowing the buyer to keep the thing and obtain a partial reimbursement (Article 1644 of the Civil Code). [...]
[...] 2e March 2000, n°98-15.286), and thus loses the benefit of any exclusion of warranty clause (Com December 1973, n°72-11.017). However, in this case, the seller and the buyer are laymen. The seller was aware of the defect in that he had hidden the infiltrated water in the walls by applying wallpaper to the walls before the sale. The Court of Cassation considered that the exclusion of guarantee clause cannot produce an effect once work has been carried out inherent to this defect, it was a case of the presence of termites (Cass. [...]
[...] In this case, to obtain compensation for the damage caused to his guitar and his speaker, Pierre can bring an action for damages. Thus, Pierre can bring an action for warranty against hidden defects by opting for the redhibitory action, and then, in parallel, an action for damages to obtain compensation for the damage caused to his equipment; and this is subject to not exceeding a period of 2 years from the discovery of the defect, and a period of 20 years from the sale. [...]
