Business Contracts

Article 1789 of the Civil Code states: “In the case where the worker only provides his labor or industry, if the thing perishes, the worker is only liable for his own fault”. Article 1790 of the Civil Code adds to that provision, specifying that “if, in the case of the preceding article, the thing perishes, albeit without any fault on the part of the worker, before the work has been accepted and w …

Supply of labor

Article 1789 of the Civil Code states: “In the case where the worker only provides his labor or industry, if the thing perishes, the worker is only liable for his own fault”. Article 1790 of the Civil Code adds to that provision, specifying that “if, in the case of the preceding article, the thing perishes, albeit without any fault on the part of the worker, before the work has been accepted and without the project owner being in a position to verify it, the worker has no claim to wages, unless the thing has perished due to a defect in the material” . 

The Court of Cassation has held that the application of the provisions of Article 1789 of the Civil Code presupposes above all that the thing has been entrusted to the contractor . While this condition seems self-evident when the thing entrusted to the contractor is a movable object , the Court of Cassation also considers that, when the contract for services relates to immovable property, Article 1789 only applies if the project owner has handed over the property to the contractor in order to carry out the work commissioned .

Secondly, the contractor's liability under Article 1789 implies that the thing entrusted to him has been lost  or damaged  during its manufacture or during the work carried out. 

When these two conditions are met, the courts have deduced a presumption of fault on the part of the contractor. The lessor is liable for damage caused to a vehicle if he cannot prove that the objects entrusted to him perished or were damaged through no fault of his own . Thus, when damage to a carousel entrusted to a company for repair occurs during its transfer to the premises where it was to be repaired, the company is liable in respect of the performance of the contract for services which it had entered into . A garage owner who, under the terms of his contract for services, fails to take proper care of the vehicle entrusted to him for repair, is thus liable in the event of theft of equipment placed inside the vehicle . Similarly, a laboratory entrusted with the reproduction of slides on paper must be required to compensate for loss of the slides, even when the cause of their disappearance is unknown . In addition, a contractor, who is liable under Article 1789 of the Civil Code for his own fault in the event of loss of property, is also liable under Article 1797 of the Civil Code for the acts of the staff he employs, so that in the event of destruction of the paper stock entrusted to him for printing, the printer must be held responsible for this loss, if the fire was caused by one of his employees during his working hours .

In contrast, according to established case law , a contractor who provides only his labor or industry is not liable if the deterioration of the goods or materials he has received for processing is not due to any fault on his part, which he must prove . Thus, a contractor who can prove that a fire occurred through no fault of his own is not liable for the loss of the goods entrusted to him . Similarly, an undertaking responsible for the sterilization of medical and surgical equipment, which establishes that the fire on its premises was caused by a deliberate act committed after a break-in, where neither the perpetrators nor the circumstances could be identified, and where the electrical installation on the premises played no part in the development of the fire, has taken sufficient measures to ensure the surveillance and securing of its premises, so that it cannot be held liable for the loss of the equipment entrusted to it .

The burden of proof in the absence of fault lies with the contractor, and the Court of Cassation is uncompromising in this respect. Consequently, an order reversing the burden of proof and dismissing a project owner's claim for damages caused by a fire that broke out while a radiator installation worker was on site must be overruled, since it failed to establish that the damage was caused by the use of a blowtorch .

On the other hand, once the absence of fault has been demonstrated by the contractor, it must be considered as exoneration. A court of appeal cannot therefore declare a dry cleaner liable for the deterioration of a blouse entrusted to him for cleaning, on the grounds that, being bound by a results-based obligationt, it was incumbent on him to examine the garment carefully beforehand and check its condition, and that by agreeing to clean it, he had taken a risk for which he had to assume the consequences, whereas the locateur d'ouvrage (service provider), within the meaning of Article 1789 of the Civil Code can be discharged by establishing his or her own absence of fault .

 Similarly, an appellate court ruling must be overruled where a dry cleaner was held liable for the deterioration of a jacket handed over for cleaning, in the absence of proof of an event of force majeure capable of exonerating him, whereas the person contracting for the service can be released from liability by proving that he was not at fault .

CA Reims, 26 July 2005, LawLex202200008890JBJ, stating that the civil liability that may be incurred in the performance of a contract for automatic washing services must be assessed in the light of Articles 1789 and 1790 of the Civil Code, where the contractor does not supply the material.

Cass. 3e civ, 11 March 1975, LawLex202200011142JBJ, specifying in matters concerning real estate, that Article 1789 only applies if the project owner has, in order to allow the performance of the work ordered, handed over the building to the contractor.

Cass. 1re civ, 10 October 1995, LawLex202200010337JBJ.

See already, Cass. com. 8 June 1971, LawLex202200003858JBJ, stating that the “locateur d'ouvrage”, debtor of the restitution of the thing entrusted to him, may be released from this obligation if he establishes that the damage sustained by this thing occurred through no fault of his own. 

Cass. 1re civ. 24 March 1987, LawLex202200006742JBJ; 13 December 2012, LawLex201300000910JBJ, holding that the operator of a carwash, in his capacity as lessor of work, can only be exonerated from liability in the event of damage to a vehicle during the carwash transaction, if he proves that the damage is not attributable to his fault.

Cass. 1re civ, 24 March 1993, LawLex202200004306JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ, 17 February 1999, LawLex202200004304JBJ. See Cass. com. 8 June 1971, LawLex202200003858JBJ, holding that an undertaking entrusted with the packing of works of art destroyed by fire cannot be exempted from liability under the contract for works, insofar as it fails to establish the definite cause of the fire, the origin of which remains unknown.

Cass. 1re civ. 24 March 1987, LawLex202200006742JBJ, holding that the textile dyer establishes his absence of fault, when he points out the state of deterioration of the fabric, undetectable to the naked eye, even by a specialist, at the time of receipt of the garment, as well as the fault of the project owner who tried to clean it before bringing it to him.

Cass. 1re civ., 20 December 1993, LawLex202200004237JBJ, considering that the dyer sufficiently establishes his absence of fault, when he produces an amicable report from the Centre technique de la teinturerie et du nettoyage (technical center for dyeing and cleaning) from which it results that the reddish reflections noted after cleaning are the result of dirt revealed by the cleaning, which eliminated them without however "making the problem disappear.

Cass. 1re civ, July 7, 1992, LawLex202200008683JBJ, for a car entrusted to a garage for repair; Cass. 1re civ, 24 March 1993, LawLex202200004306JBJ, for medical equipment entrusted for sterilization; Cass. 1re civ, 20 December 1993, LawLex202200004237JBJ, for clothes entrusted to a dry cleaner for cleaning; Cass. 1re civ. 13 December 2012, LawLex201300000910JBJ, for a car entrusted to the operator of an automatic car wash.

Cass. 3e civ, 11 March 1975, LawLex202200011142JBJ, cited above.

Cass. com. 8 June 1971, LawLex202200003858JBJ, for the loss of works of art entrusted for packaging; Cass. 1re civ. 14 May 1991, LawLex200300001213JBJ, for the loss of slides entrusted for reproduction; Cass. 1re civ. 10 October 1995, LawLex202200010337JBJ, for the loss of paper entrusted for printing. 

Cass. 1re civ. 24 March 1987, LawLex202200006742JBJ, for damage to a blouse entrusted for cleaning; Cass. 1re civ. 26 January 1999, LawLex202200003856JBJ, for damage to a merry-go-round entrusted for repair.

CA Nancy, 28 October 2010, LawLex202200004603JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ, 26 January 1999, LawLex202200003856JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ, 7 July 1992, LawLex202200008683JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ, 14 May 1991, LawLex200300001213JBJ.

Business Contracts

313. Supply of labor

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

313. Supply of labor

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise