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 intermediary seller sued by the purchaser to enforce warranty against latent defects may, under certain conditions, sue its own seller in warranty as protection against any possible conviction.
For the action to be admissible, the defect must precede the sale , i.e. be a manufacturing or construction defect. Thus, the professional vendor, a mere supplier, cannot be held responsible for latent  …

Recourse action

The intermediary seller sued by the purchaser to enforce warranty against latent defects may, under certain conditions, sue its own seller in warranty as protection against any possible conviction.

For the action to be admissible, the defect must precede the sale , i.e. be a manufacturing or construction defect. Thus, the professional vendor, a mere supplier, cannot be held responsible for latent defects resulting from a design error, which only engages the manufacturer . Similarly, the importer may be required to hold the dealer harmless from all convictions handed down by the court, if the existence of a construction defect is established . On the other hand, a contractor who is ordered to  honor the warranty against the latent defects affecting concrete he has delivered and cast cannot bring third-party proceedings against his supplier when there is no evidence that the defect is directly and immediately related to the cement itself, its quality and/or its original condition . The intermediary seller who does not establish that the defect in question is serial in nature, in the absence of a recall action for vehicles of the same model or information from consumer associations or the manufacturer itself, also cannot make a third-party claim against it .

Further, an intermediary seller of a faulty item that has not been sued for liability by the purchasers does not have a direct and certain interest in acting preemptively against the manufacturer .

Moreover, the fault of the intermediary seller may, in certain cases, exempt the original seller from his warranty obligation. This is so when the manufacturer, notified of the existence of the defect, sent circulars or information notes to its dealers, in which it details the procedure to be followed to avoid the occurrence of disorders, which the intermediary seller did not respect . Thus, in the automobile sector, the intermediary seller cannot bring a claim in warranty against the manufacturer if he has not complied with the mandatory recommendations communicated to him by the manufacturer within the framework of the recall campaign , and which would have enabled him to remedy the defects . Conversely, a manufacturer who does not justify having notified the dealer of the risks likely to affect the vehicle sold  , or who failed to exercise due care in the implementation of a recall campaign  , or who has issued the technical notice specifying the installation requirements only after the sale and has not informed the dealer of the particular technique to be used in the collective kitchens , cannot absolve itself of its liability. The same applies when the warnings did not prevent the defects from getting worse .

Finally, the intermediary seller, defendant in the rescission action, also cannot claim in warranty against the manufacturer. In fact, the restitution of the price incumbent on the seller due to the cancellation of the sale does not constitute compensable damage, since he correlatively recovered the thing affected by a latent defect . The mechanism of reciprocal restitution also justifies that the successive sellers cannot be ordered in solidum to return the price to the sub-buyer: the return of the thing can only be made to one of them . According to the court, the intermediary seller's warranty claim against the manufacturer amounts to a claim for damages based on Article 1645 of the Civil Code, which cannot cover the sale price . The manufacturer, sued for enforcement of the warranty up to the amount of all the fines imposed on the intermediary seller ordered to cover the consequences of the product containing a latent defect, may argue in order to limit the scope of its liability, that the cost of removing and reinstalling defective cladding is not incumbent upon it .

 CA Rouen, 23 May 2002, LawLex200500004139JBJ.

 CA Rennes, 4 September 1996, LawLex200500005518JBJ; CA Nîmes, 15 May 1997, LawLex200400001964JBJ. Contra, Cass. com., 24 June 2003, LawLex200300003414JBJ, holding that the intermediary seller of a product against whom proceedings are brought for latent defects, cannot seek the guarantee of the manufacturer on the grounds that the defect is due to the inadequacy of the components delivered by it, when, in its capacity as a professional, it is up to him to check the quality.

CA Nîmes, 23 May 2019, LawLex201900000741JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 2 October 2013, LawLex201400000357JBJ.

 CA Aix-en-Provence, 10 April 2012, LawLex201200001575JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 28 March 1995, LawLex200700000771JBJ, No 1350; 7 March 2000, LawLex200500004314JBJ; 14 January 2003, LawLex200700000773JBJ; 26 September 2006, LawLex200700000774JBJ; Cass. com., 7 December 2010, LawLex201200001557JBJ. See also CA Rennes, 22 February 2008, LawLex201200001819JBJ; CA Montpellier, 31 December 2008, LawLex201200001883JBJ; 9 November 2010, LawLex201200001855JBJ; CA Rennes, 29 October 2010, LawLex201200001780JBJ; 2 December 2016, LawLex201600002090JBJ; 22 November 2019, LawLex201900001444JBJ.

 CA Lyon, 14 January 2011, LawLex201200001708JBJ; CA Pau, 17 August 2011, LawLex201200001691JBJ; CA Grenoble, 12 May 2014, LawLex201400002037JBJ. Contra, CA Rennes, 7 January 2011, LawLex201200001877JBJ.

 CA Pau, 18 April 2013, LawLex201400001567JBJ.

Cass. civ. 1re, 6 January 2021, LawLex202100000155JBJ.

  CA Riom, 8 April 2013, LawLex201400001650JBJ. See also CA Colmar, 14 November 2007, LawLex201200001943JBJ, concerning a kitchen manufacturer.

  CA Montpellier, 13 March 2012, LawLex201200001644JBJ.

 CA Reims, 19 April 2016, LawLex201600000861JBJ.

CA Pau, 27 November 2019, LawLex201900001463JBJ.

  Cass. 1re civ., 11 April 1995, LawLex200500005012JBJ; CA Lyon, 14 January 2011, LawLex201200001708JBJ.

 Cass. com., 3 May 2012, LawLex201200001447JBJ.

 CA Rennes, 14 February 2008, LawLex201200001897JBJ, holding that the original seller who satisfied his obligation to provide information, when he had informed his dealers of the conduct to take concerning a latent defect affecting a vehicle, cannot be called in warranty; CA Nancy, 6 January 2011, LawLex201200001709JBJ; CA Toulouse, 10 April 2012, LawLex201200001555JBJ, retaining a 90% share of liability for the intermediary seller who failed to comply with the recommendations of the manufacturer and 10% for the latter.

 CA Douai, 11 June 2012, LawLex201200001525JBJ; CA Poitiers, 25 March 2016, LawLex201600000717JBJ, for a reseller who is a third party to the manufacturer's primary network, non-recipient of its information note on the existence of the defect.

French Consumer Law

622. Recourse action

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

622. Recourse action

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