Court of Cassation Ruling on Third Party Liability
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Contractual liability, delictual liability, Court of Cassation, contractual fault, extra-contractual liability, relative effect of contract, opposability, third party rights, contractual breach, damage compensation, principle of identity of contractual and delictual faults, French law, tort law, contract law, Civil Code article 1234, liability of defaulting contractor
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 3
Abstract
The Court of Cassation's plenary assembly ruled on the liability of a defaulting contractor towards a third party, establishing the principle of identity of contractual and delictual faults.
Extract
[...] certain judgments of the Court of Cassation which have gone in the same direction as the solution rendered by the CE: Cass. 3e civ October 2008 and Cass. 1re civ December 2011. Another element making the solution uncertain: the project of reform of civil liability. In fact, it clearly opts for the abandonment of this jurisprudence Myrh'o in disposing at the article 1234 that 'when the non-performance of a contractual obligation is the direct cause of damage suffered by a third party, that party can only seek compensation from the debtor on the basis of extra-contractual liability, at its own expense to provide proof of one of the facts generating the provisions referred to in Section II of Chapter II'. [...]
[...] The lessors then filed a cassation appeal. They consider that the Bootshop company is a third party to the lease contract and does not provide proof of delictual fault. The Court of Cassation was thus required to answer the question of whether a third party can rely on the contract, on the basis of delictual liability, in so far as the breach of one party to its own contractual commitment has caused a loss. By a judgment rendered in plenary assembly on 6 October 2006, the Court of Cassation rejects the appeal filed by the lessors, the X consortium. [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Plenary Assembly October 2006, n° 05-13.255, judgment Myr'ho or BootShop - Can a third party rely on a contract, on the basis of delictual liability, in so far as the breach of one party to its own contractual commitment has caused a loss? A third-party victim of damage can rely on a contract that is not even opposable to him. This is the lesson that can be drawn from this plenary assembly judgment dated 6 October 2006. [...]
[...] Repeated solution, see judgment Court of Cassation plenary session 13 January 2020. The Court of Cassation holds that the sole contractual fault is sufficient to open up to the third party a right to compensation on the basis of delictual liability from the moment when it suffers a damage. It is up to the third party who is a victim to demonstrate the causal link between the contractual fault and the damage. This principle of identical faults applies whether the obligation weighing on the defaulting contractor is of means (hypothesis of the judgment in the case at hand) or of result (hypothesis of the 2020 judgment). [...]
[...] The first civil chamber had ruled in favor of admitting the action of the third party in the event of a contractual breach by the debtor when the latter causes damage to a third party: cf. Cass. 1re civ July 2000 : « third parties to a contract are entitled to invoke the defective performance of the contract when it has caused them damage. On the other hand, the commercial chamber constantly judged that the contractual failure of the debtor was not sufficient to engage the debtor's liability towards the third party when the latter causes damage to a third party. [...]
