Court of Cassation Rulings on Sales Contract Nullity

Extract

[...] The Court of Cassation rejects the appeal, explaining that the incorrect designation of the public auction catalog changed the material of the property and not its authenticity regarding the brand (buyer's criterion), therefore the error of law is not admitted and the solution of the Court of Appeal is maintained. To better understand the decision of the Court of Cassation, it is necessary to understand what the notion of substantial qualities refers to. This notion can be studied from an objective point of view (institutions) but also from a subjective point of view (II). I. [...]

[...] An appeal is lodged, and the Versailles Court of Appeal condemns him to pay the lot and damages, on the grounds that the error regarding the substantial qualities of the property cannot be retained because the Court of Appeal was able to assess that what the applicant was looking for was a product of the brand and not the fact that it was made of beech wood or not; therefore, the change regarding the quality of the material used should not impact his desire to acquire the table. He then files an appeal with the Court of Cassation. The applicant then supports the same argument, that of the error on the substantial qualities of the property. [...]

[...] This solution of the Court of Appeal could be surprising in the light of article 1110 of the Civil Code, but with hindsight it is not as surprising as it seems, the Court of Appeal has resolved the dispute by being influenced by the new law that is the reform ordinance of contract law of 2016. The Court of Cassation will arrive at the same solution and will not pronounce the nullity of the contract but using a completely different reasoning than that of the Court of Appeal of Versailles. [...]

[...] An appeal to the Court of Cassation is then filed. It then returns to the first civil chamber of the Court of Cassation to determine whether the buyer's silence on the value can lead to deceit in the matter of a sales contract. In this ruling, the Court of Cassation quashes and annuls the ruling made by the Court of Appeal and declares 'that no obligation to provide information weighed on the buyer', thus the cat of the photos does not impose on the buyer an obligation to provide information regarding the value of the item in question, even if the information was essential for the seller's consent. [...]

[...] Thus, the Court of Cassation refuses to admit the error because, according to the former article 1110 of the Civil Code, the error must reside in the material of the good, but this is not the reason for the acquisition of the good, in order to admit it, the applicant to the appeal would have had to provide proof that it was the material that mattered to his eyes rather than the brand. The Court of Cassation then rejects the appeal and condemns the applicant to pay the amount due for the good at public auction. B. [...]