Extract
[...] In fact, it largely based itself on the agreement of the co-contractants on the thing and on the price, without taking into account the particular context of the execution of the aforementioned contract. The court thus showed itself to be very little flexible in its interpretation. However, it well applied the classical criteria and principles of French civil law. The qualification of sales contract and rejection of appeal is both strict but also secure. A secure scope The rendered judgment is unprecedented. [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber November 2004, No. 03-11.036 - Is a contract concluded between a contractor and an order giver, relating to the supply of a specific object meeting a particular need, a sales contract or a construction contract? CIVIL OBLIGATIONS LAW Commentary on the judgment: Cass. Com November 2004, n° 03-11.036 The present judgment of rejection, unprecedented, rendered by the commercial chamber of the court of cassation on 9 November 2004 deals with the demarcation of the boundary between the sales contract and the construction contract. [...]
[...] The judges, however, ruled in favor of the sales contract, only briefly considering the contractual specifications. The parties' will appears to be relegated to the background here. The Court of Cassation only judges the law, without considering the factual elements and the parties' wishes. The stakes of qualification are important: while the sales contract provides a two-year guarantee against hidden defects, the construction contract imposes a ten-year coverage obligation on the contractor, as well as a results-based obligation. Ultimately, the obligations towards the parties are not the same and have significant impacts on subsequent troubles and defects. [...]
[...] The fundamental decision made by the mixed chamber on the business contract on March (n° 80-12.125) neither gave more indications on the case in question. The judges then avoided any questioning, any legal vacuum by indicating that it was advisable to prioritize standardization over contractual specifications. This solution therefore provides a clear and real criterion of distinction and border between, on the one hand, the sales contract and, on the other hand, the business contract. In addition, it provides legal security in that the question will no longer be in the minds of the co-contracting parties or in the doctrine. [...]
[...] The consideration is the payment of a price in money, generally a sum of money. In this case, there was indeed the transfer of ownership of a thing, the electric generators. The judges, however, went further by closely examining the product, the object of the contract. While the contract for work involves the design of a specific product to meet specific needs expressed by a customer, the sales contract involves a product that does not have these characteristics. In the latter case, the product can be interchangeable or substitutable. [...]
