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 period laid down by Article 1648 of the Civil Code is liable to be interrupted for any of the causes provided for in Articles 2240 to 2246 of the Civil Code, and by an application for legal aid made to the legal aid office before the expiry of the time-limit .

According to Article 2240 of the Civil Code, “the acknowledgement by the debtor of the right of the person against whom the limitation period is running”. These provisions are intended to apply, within the framework of the warranty against latent defects, to the time-limit of Article 1648 of the Civil Code . Indeed, the courts consider that the risk of deterioration of evidence disappears when the seller or manufacturers admits that the thing sold is affected by a defect . The recognition of liability must be devoid of any ambiguity . Therefore, it cannot be inferred from the letter in which the seller admits that he has experienced certain difficulties with the product in question and is the subject of several legal proceedings in this respect when it is sent not to the buyer but to the expert , or the one in which the seller informs the buyer that his claim has been passed on to the manufacturer and that it has made, as a precaution, a declaration to its insurer , or even the one in which he agrees “exceptionally and purely commercially to pay half of the amount of the work relating to the replacement of the engine (...) on receipt of a written agreement” . 

The limitation period cannot be interrupted when it has not started to run. Thus, the letter sent by the seller after receipt of the order, in which it informs the buyer that some of its products are defective and recommends that he keeps them carefully to implement the warranty, has no suspensive effect when the limitation period only began to run later, on receipt of the order . Similarly, when the seller has recovered only part of the products delivered and not all them, the interruption of the limitation period does not apply in respect of the products kept by the buyer . The offer to cover a part of the repairs, as a commercial gesture by the manufacturer, is also not interpreted as a recognition of liability such as to interrupt the limitation period .

Finally, even when the seller has acknowledged his liability, the limitation period cannot be suspended if he has been prevented from making the necessary repairs due to the short period of time given to do this by the buyer .

However, the seller's multiple interventions on the thing , its replacement , and granting of credit notes of a value equal to that of the defective products , or granting a five-year contractual warranty on the goods recognized as defective , would reflect the seller's acknowledgement of liability.

Before the reform of the statute of limitations in 2008, Article 2244 of the Civil Code already provided that a court summons, even in summary proceedings, could interrupt the limitation period and the time-limits for bringing proceedings. Current Article 2241 of the Civil Code provides that a petition to the court, even in summary proceedings, interrupts the limitation period as well as the time-limit for bringing an action, bearing in mind that the suspension resulting from the petition to the court produces its effects until the proceedings are extinguished under Article 2242. Moreover, Article 2239 provides that the limitation period is stayed when the court grants a request for an investigative measure made before any trial. The time-limit then starts to run again, for a period of not less than six months, from the day on which the measure was executed. These provisions have been interpreted in many different ways by the courts.

The court must therefore ensure, before declaring an action inadmissible for being out of time, that the buyer did not apply to the interim relief court for the appointment of an expert within the time-limit of Article 1648 . Although the suspensive effect of the application to the interim relief judge for the appointment of an expert is in principle acquired , it assumes, according to some trial courts, that the application was based on the warranty against latent defects . The Court of Cassation partially validated this reasoning holding that the limitation period of the action in warranty against latent defects could not be interrupted by the filing of a suit against the defendant on the basis of current Article 1240 of the Civil Code. However, in that case the action in question had been brought by another victim of the defect, which could mitigate the scope of the requirement . In another case, the Court of Cassation accepted the interruption of the short period even if the buyer only invoked the warranty against latent defects in submissions filed years later, when it appeared from the order handed down by the court that the buyer had indicated in his summons that he had acquired a vehicle with latent defects . More recently, the Court has acknowledged the suspensive effect of the limitation period  in an action in  warranty against latent defects in a claim based on fraud  or under Article 1104 of the Civil Code  by reason of the common purpose of these various legal bases. It is irrelevant that the order handed down was subsequently declared null and void . Similarly, a request for an expert appraisal presented in an incidental manner, in response to a request for a provision made by the seller , or the summons by the seller of its own supplier, to extend to it the expert appraisal requested by the final buyer , or by a third-party victim of the defect of the thing , interrupts the short period. This is not the case, however, of the voluntary participation of the buyers in the court-ordered appraisal initiated by the seller against its own supplier , of the referral of the matter to the DGCCRF , of the declaration of loss made by the buyer to his insurer . In addition, under Article 2243 of the Civil Code, the interruption resulting from the summons for interim measures is void when the court rejects the application for an expert appraisal  or finds the existence of serious challenge .

Before the reform of the statute of limitations, while some trial courts considered that the interruption of the limitation period resulted in the renewal of the time-limit of Article 1648 of the Civil Code , the Court of Cassation held that the interruption replaced the short period by the general civil law limitation period, ten years or thirty years, depending on whether the sale was concluded between traders or between an individual and a trader . Thus, the summons of the manufacturer by the intermediary seller to include it in the expert appraisal operations was deemed to interrupt the limitation period and of such a nature as to trigger the ordinary civil law limitation period, meaning that the joinder of the manufacturer, which occurred during this period, was not late due to the fact that it had been exercised more than twenty-two months after the principal summons . Case law first held that this interchange between the short period and the limitation period of common law took effect from the interim order , then from the sale , to finally retain the date of delivery .

Since the reform of the statute of limitations by the Law of 17 June 2008, Article 2231 of the Civil Code provides that the interruption of the limitation period cancels the limitation period acquired and triggers a new period of the same duration as the old one. There is therefore no longer a substitution of the limitation period, but the application of the same period as the one interrupted. In accordance with Article 1648 of the Civil Code, the interruption of the limitation period leads to the renewal of the two-year period , the starting point of which is fixed, in the event of summons for an emergency expert appraisal,  at the date of the ordinance with the period suspended until the submission of the expert report . In a ruling dated 21 July 2023 , the mixed chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that the two-year period under Article 1648, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code - which it defined as a limitation period (délai de prescription) rather than a forfeiture period barring the right to sue (délai de forclusion), in order to unify the positions of its various chambers  - when it is interrupted by a summons in interim proceedings in accordance with Article 2241, it is also suspended when the court has granted a request for a pre-tria investigative measure in application of Article 2239, it being understood that the time-limit then starts to run again from the day on which the measure was executed .

 Solution based on Article 38 of Decree No 91-1266 of 19 December 1991, which provides that when an action is to be brought before the expiry of a time limit before the first instance court, the action is deemed to have been brought within the time limit if the related application for legal aid is addressed to the legal aid office before the expiry of said period and if the action is brought within a new period of the same duration, See. Cass. 1re civ., 4 May 1994, LawLex200500004977JBJ; 21 November 2006, LawLex200700000791JBJ.

 CA Amiens, 27 April 1990, LawLex200400001822JBJ; Cass. com., 9 January 2001, LawLex200700000797JBJ; CA Lyon, 17 November 2011, LawLex201200001892JBJ, recognition of liability combined with other factors such as amicable contacts between the seller and buyer.

 Cass. com., 8 January 2008, LawLex201200001586JBJ.

 CA Lyon, 26 June 2002, LawLex200700000802JBJ.

 CA Nancy, 20 February 2014, LawLex201400001703JBJ.

 CA Paris, 11 September 1997, LawLex200500005661JBJ.

 CA Versailles, 14 January 2016, LawLex201600000160JBJ.

 Cass. com., 12 May 2009, LawLex201200001479JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 21 October 1997, LawLex200400003474JBJ; 12 October 1999, LawLex200500003822JBJ; 19 October 1999, LawLex200400003429JBJ; 17 November 1999, LawLex200500004316JBJ; 25 January 2000, LawLex200500005044JBJ; 5 October 2000, LawLex200400003627JBJ; 12 December 2000, LawLex200400003633JBJ; Cass. com., 6 March 2001, LawLex200400003635JBJ; Cass. 3e civ., 5 December 2001, LawLex200400003620JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 25 June 2002, LawLex200400003626JBJ; CA Toulouse, 10 February 2003, LawLex200300003516JBJ; Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 23 September 2003, LawLex200500003821JBJ; Cass. com., 19 November 2003, LawLex200500003952JBJ; CA Versailles, 16 May 2008, LawLex201200001823JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 5 June 2008, LawLex201200001438JBJ, regarding the action of an insurer subrogated to the rights of the buyer; CA Rennes, 29 October 2010, LawLex201200001780JBJ. 

 CA Besançon, 10 September 2002, LawLex200500004148JBJ; CA Rennes, 28 October 2016, LawLex201600001898JBJ, extending the remedy to the claim on the merits; cf. CA Lyon, 5 December 2013, LawLex201400000450JBJ, admitting the suspensive nature of the summons initially based on liability for defective products.

 Cass. civ. 2e, 23 November 2017, LawLex201700001996JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 3 June 2010, LawLex201200001463JBJ. See also CA Douai, 2 June 2014, LawLex201400002116JBJ.

 CA Dijon, 26 September 1996, LawLex200500005659JBJ; 12 October 2006, LawLex200700000803JBJ; CA Rennes, 2 October 2018, LawLex201800001499JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 18 April 2019, LawLex201900000639JBJ.

Cass. 1re ch. civ., 9 May 2019, LawLex201900000621JBJ.

  Court of Cassation,  Commercial Chamber, 5 March 2002, LawLex200400003622JBJ.

Cass. com., 2 April 1996, LawLex200500003702JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 14 January 2016, LawLex201600000230JBJ.

CA Basse-Terre, 12 June 1995, LawLex200500005568JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 21 November 1995, LawLex200500005016JBJ; 14 November 2013, LawLex201400000356JBJ.

  Cass. com., 3 December 2003, LawLex200400003473JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 18 September 2002, LawLex200500004301JBJ, overturning CA Nîmes, 2 May 2000, LawLex200500005249JBJ.

  CA Nîmes, 28 June 2005, LawLex200600001713JBJ.

  CA Toulouse, 23 March 2016, LawLex201600000694JBJ.

 CA Rennes, 28 October 2016, LawLex201600001898JBJ.

 CA Pau, 26 April 1990, LawLex200300004152JBJ.

 CA Bordeaux, 21 June 2017, LawLex201700001161JBJ.

See CA Colmar, 26 February 1997, LawLex200400001726JBJ; 19 September 1997, LawLex200400001779JBJ; CA Paris, 2 September 1998, LawLex200500004219JBJ.

Cass. com., 21 October 1997, LawLex200400003474JBJ, cited above; 6 March 2001, LawLex200400003635JBJ, cited above; 19 November 2003, LawLex200500003952JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 19 October 1999, LawLex200400003429JBJ, cited above; 17 November 1999, LawLex200500004316JBJ, cited above; 25 January 2000, LawLex200500005044JBJ; 5 October 2000, LawLex200400003627JBJ and LawLex200500004993JBJ; 12 December 2000, LawLex200400003633JBJ, cited above; 14 January 2016, LawLex201600000230JBJ, (regime prior to the reform of the statute of limitations).

 Cass. 1re civ., 14 November 2013, LawLex201400000356JBJ.

 Cass. com., 21 October 1997, LawLex200400003474JBJ; CA Nîmes, 8 November 2001, LawLex200500004146JBJ.

 See. Cass. 1re civ., 19 October 1999, LawLex200400003429JBJ, cited above.

 Cass. 1re civ., 25 June 2002, LawLex200400003626JBJ.

CA Pau, 17 October 2012, LawLex201300000219JBJ; CA Nancy, 20 February 2014, LawLex201400001703JBJ; CA Douai, 2 June 2014, LawLex201400002116JBJ; CA Montpellier, 13 October 2015, LawLex201600000394JBJ; Cass.3e civ. 3e, 5 January 2017,

LawLex201700000080JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 11 April 2018, LawLex201800001110JBJ; CA Rennes, 2 October 2018, LawLex201800001499JBJ.

 CA Metz, 10 November 2016, LawLex201600001906JBJ.

 CA Limoges, 4 November 2014, LawLex201600000397JBJ; CA Versailles, 17 September 2015, LawLex201600000375JBJ; CA Poitiers, 29 January 2016, LawLex201600000334JBJ.

CA Paris, 10 January 2002, LawLex200700000801JBJ. Cf, for a letter sent to the buyer and acknowledging the defect, CA Pau, 17 October 2012, LawLex201300000219JBJ.

Cass. mixte, 21 July 2023, LawLex202300010599JBJ.

The third civil chamber of the Court of Cassation recently characterized the period stipulated in Article 1648, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code as a délai de forclusion that cannot be suspended (Cass., 3rd ch. civ., 5 January 2022, LawLex202200000082JBJ, while the first chamber considers it to be a limitation period, subject to interruption and suspension (Cass., 1re civ., 20 October 2021, LawLex202200001421JBJ).

Cass. 1re civ., 4 September 2024, LawLex202400005962JBJ: the two-year period provided for in Article 1648 of the Civil Code for bringing an action for warranty against latent defects is a limitation period, which may be suspended pursuant to Article 2239 of the same code, so that a court of appeal cannot declare the action time-barred, whereas that period, interrupted by the summons in interim proceedings, then suspended from the date of the order designating the expert until the filing of the latter's report, had not expired on the day of the writ of summons in the main proceedings. See for sales concluded before the entry into force of the law on the statute of limitations, the third civil chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld this position in relation to a recourse action brought by a contractor, ruling that the starting point of the time-limit granted to the contractor by Article 1648 of the Civil Code is set at the date of his own summons, the time-limit in Article L. 110-4 of the Commercial Code is then suspended until his liability has been sought by the project owner: Cass. 3e civ., 20 October 2004, LawLex200400003412JBJ; 11 March 2014, LawLex201400000507JBJ; 6 December 2018, LawLex201900002083JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 March 2000, LawLex200600001110JBJ.

CA Rennes, 28 February 2020, LawLex202000000344JBJ.

 Cass. com., 27 June 2006, LawLex200700000779JBJ.

 Cass. com., 10 May 2000, LawLex200700000798JBJ.

 CA Lyon, 28 March 2017, LawLex201800000629JBJ.

633. Interruption