Extract
[...] Signs of weaknesses at the foot of the partition walls undoubtedly relate to the essential qualities of the house, which is the subject of the sales contract. If the applicant had known this, he would not have contracted or would have done so at a different price. As for deceit, the nature of the error, whether excusable or not, is of little importance since the buyer is mistaken due to the seller's behavior, a lie, maneuvers or deceitful reticence. In this case, if the seller did not inform the appellant of the defects in the house, he may have behaved in a way that constitutes the material element of deceit. [...]
[...] First, by determining the cause in relation to the economy of the contract desired by the parties. Then it was attempted to sanction the partial falsehood of the cause (CCass 11 March 2003). This last solution was limited by a subsequent decision of 31 May 2007. All these difficulties led to the suppression of the cause by the reform. - The reform, instead of the cause, provides the terminology of the content of the contract and sanctions, in place of the absence of cause, the lack of counterparty. [...]
[...] In this case, one can consider that, as in all synallagmatic contracts, the cause of the obligation of one party is the object of the obligation of the other. Therefore, here, one can consider that the applicant in the appeal expects to obtain in exchange for the payment of the price to the seller, a house conforming to his expectations and therefore in good condition. - Article 1131 old Civil Code: If one of the obligations was devoid of cause, the contract could be annulled. [...]
[...] The nullity could be avoided if the other party paid the just price. But since this is not envisaged in the judgment, we can think that the injury is not sufficient. Because if it were, it would certainly have the most effective means of obtaining nullity. - Vices of consent: Two are considered by the applicant on appeal: namely, deceit and error. As for the error, it must relate to the essential qualities of the thing that is the subject of the contract, be excusable and determinative of consent. [...]
[...] In fact, the reform only takes up the initial solution of the Court regarding the necessity of a total absence of cause. - In this case, the Court considers that the state of the property on the day of the sale can make the counterparty of the applicant in the appeal, that is to say, paying the price, derisory, from the formation of the contract. The Court therefore considers that the state of a property, not conforming to the buyer's expectations, can constitute a total absence of cause from the formation of the contract, and not simply a partial absence, thus allowing the sanctioning of the contractual imbalance. [...]
