French Consumer Law is a comprehensive and comparative overview of French and EU law in this field, covering: advertising, unfair commercial practices, conditions for the validity of contracts, unfair terms, product conformity, latent defects, product safety.

French Consumer Law

The European and French legislators have preferred to give priority to compensation in kind in the event of non-conformity. Thus, Article L. 217-9  (former Article L. 211-9) of the Consumer Code provides that the buyer may choose between the repair and the replacement of the defective good.  Under Article L. 217-10, the repair or replacement of non-conforming goods “includes, where applicable, the …

Compensation in kind

The European and French legislators have preferred to give priority to compensation in kind in the event of non-conformity. Thus, Article L. 217-9  (former Article L. 211-9) of the Consumer Code provides that the buyer may choose between the repair and the replacement of the defective good.  Under Article L. 217-10, the repair or replacement of non-conforming goods “includes, where applicable, the removal and return of the goods  and the installation of the repaired or replacement goods by the seller”. Compliance is to be achieved “within a reasonable time-limit, which may not exceed thirty days following the consumer's request and without major inconvenience to the consumer, taking into account the nature of the goods and the use to which they are put”. 

Pursuant to new Article L. 217-12  (formerly Article L. 217-9, second paragraph), the seller may, however, decide not to proceed in accordance with the buyer's choice when the method of compensation chosen by the buyer is impossible, in particular because the good can no longer be replaced because it is no longer manufactured or when the buyer's choice entails a cost manifestly disproportionate with regard to the other method . The assessment of the disproportionate nature of the cost incurred by one of the solutions is necessarily assessed in relation to the other. Thus, the removal of the non-compliant cover and the installation of a new cover does not, for the trial courts, entail a disproportionately high cost in relation to the repair, since, as it is a design defect, this is not possible . If the option chosen by the buyer is impossible or proportionately too expensive to implement, the seller is obliged to proceed according to the other method, unless it is impossible.  According to the Court of Cassation, this possibility can only arise when the defect in the thing sold is of minor importance and, unless this is impossible - when the seller opts for the remedy not chosen by the buyer - which cannot be deduced from a failure to agree on the date of reparation, if it is not shown to be due to the seller's opposition . According to case law, the seller having implemented the means to enable the repair of the goods within a period of one month, with the failure to actually carry out this repair during that period not being due to the seller but being linked to the Covid-19 pandemic, and who, at the same time, offered an alternative solution to the consumer, has satisfied the legal guarantee of conformity .

Certain provisions that have been added to Article L. 217-9 following the adoption of Law No 2020-105 of 10 February 2020 on the fight against waste and the circular economy are now included in Article L. 217-13 as amended by Ordinance No 2021-1247 which provides that any product repaired under the legal guarantee of conformity benefits from a six-month extension of warranty. In addition, if the consumer chooses to have the product repaired, but the seller does not do so, a new period for the legal warranty relative to the replaced product begins to run. This provision applies from the day the replacement goods are delivered to the consumer.

Art. L. 217-9, Consumer Code: “The consumer shall ask the seller to bring the goods into conformity, either by repairing or replacing them. To this end, the consumer shall make the goods available to the seller”.

In the event of a return of the good, Article D. 217-1, resulting from Decree No 2022-946 of 29 June 2022, applicable from 1 October 2022, provides that the seller must advise the consumer of the practical arrangements for returning the good if it cannot be brought into conformity at the place where the good is located. If the goods can be returned by post without major inconvenience or cost disproportionate to their value, the consumer must send the goods, on the understanding that the trader must, under penalty of a surcharge, reimburse the consumer within a time-limit of fourteen days at the latest from the day on which the consumer is informed that the goods have been taken over under the legal guarantee pursuant to Article L.241-6. In any case, it is not the consumer's responsibility to take charge of the transport of the goods, except for postal delivery.

Article L. 217-12, Consumer Code: "The seller may not proceed according to the choice made by the consumer if the requested compliance is impossible or entails disproportionate costs with regard to, in particular:

1° The value that the good would have in the absence of lack of conformity ;

2° the significance of the lack of conformity; and

3° the possibility of choosing the other option without major inconvenience to the consumer.

The seller may refuse to bring the goods into conformity if this is impossible or would entail disproportionate costs, particularly with regard to 1° and 2°.

When these conditions are not respected, the consumer can, after formal notice, pursue the forced execution in kind of the solution initially requested, in accordance with articles 1221 and following of the Civil Code.

Any refusal by the seller to proceed according to the consumer's choice or to bring the goods into conformity shall be justified in writing or on a durable medium".

 Cass. civ. 1re, 5 July 2017, LawLex201800000953JBJ: upholding the Court of Appeal which had found through in discretionary assessment of the evidence submitted, that the obligation to replace a luxury top-of-the-range vehicle, subject to malfunctions at the level of the braking system and some accessories and equipment, with a new vehicle could not be legitimately contested taking account of the legitimate expectations of the recipient of a vehicle in this category, the extent of the defects in question and the lack of any other possible offer, insofar as the replacement demanded is not such as to give rise to a manifestly disproportionate cost.

 CA Aix-en-Provence, 25 May 2013, LawLex201400000655JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., April 30, 2014, LawLex201600000127JBJ.

TJ Bordeaux, 7 March 2024, LawLex202400002454JBJ.

French Consumer Law

525. Compensation in kind

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

525. Compensation in kind

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