This case study examines the action for latent defects in the context of successive sales, determining the liable parties and the effects of such an action.
Extract
[...] Warranty of latent defects and successive sales CASE STUDY - WARRANTY OF LATENT DEFECTS AND SUCCESSIVE SALES Martin's father bought a building in 2013, leaving it to his son upon his death. The property was purchased from Mr. Bourguignon, deceased, and leaving insolvent heirs; who in turn had bought it from Mr. Corbiere in 1980, who declared in the sales deed that he had made repairs to the roof. However, significant leaks occurred in January 2025 and March 2026, and an amicable expertise shows that they come from disorders affecting the roof for years, which can also compromise its solidity. [...]
[...] In this case, during the first sale, Mr. Corbiere had declared in the sales deed that he had carried out repair works inherent to the roof. Therefore, he was aware of the defect affecting the roof at the time of the first sale. Therefore, Martin would be entitled to bring an action for latent defects against Mr. Corbiere. However, the first sale took place in 1980. The action for latent defects cannot be brought 20 years after the sale (Cass. [...]
[...] Corbiere is not possible. Thus, Martin will have to direct his action against Mr. Bourguignon, an action that will be transmitted to his heirs. On the effects of the action in guarantee of hidden defects In the context of an action in guarantee of hidden defects, the buyer has a choice regarding its effects. In fact, he can opt for the estimatory action, that is to say, keep the thing and obtain a partial refund; or opt for the redhibitory action, that is to say, return the thing and obtain a full refund (article 1644 of the Civil Code). [...]
[...] However, it remains to be determined against whom this action will be brought. On the successive sale and determination of the defendant The building has been the subject of two sales: a first one taking place between Mr. Corbiere and Mr. Bourguignon in 1980, and a second one taking place between Mr. Bourguignon and Martin in 2013. The amicable expertise carried out by Martin highlighted the fact that the defect had been present for years. The sub-buyer is entitled to exercise a guarantee of latent defects against the initial seller (Cass. [...]
[...] Corbiere was mentioned in the sales deed at the time of his purchase in 1980, and on the other hand, the amicable expertise highlighted the fact that the disorders inherent to the roof have been present for years. Therefore, Mr. Bourguigon must have had knowledge of the defect at the time of the sale. Thus, Martin can bring an action for latent defects against Mr. Bourguignon, opt for the estimatory action on the one hand, and on the other hand, bring an indemnity action. [...]
