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

Originally, Article 1648 of the Civil Code provided that the action for latent defects should “be brought by the purchaser, in a short period of time, depending on the nature of the prohibitive defects, and the practices of the place where the sale was made”. The text did not specify either the length of the period, derogating from ordinary civil law, or its starting point, both of which were left …

Limitation for bringing action

Originally, Article 1648 of the Civil Code provided that the action for latent defects should “be brought by the purchaser, in a short period of time, depending on the nature of the prohibitive defects, and the practices of the place where the sale was made”. The text did not specify either the length of the period, derogating from ordinary civil law, or its starting point, both of which were left to the sovereign assessment of the trial courts , depending on the circumstances of the case. The considerable freedom left to the courts has sometimes given rise to conflicting solutions. Time-limits of more than two and a half years , of twenty months , eighteen months , one year , eight months  or of more than six months  have been deemed excessive. These uncertainties, the source of a great deal of litigation, constituted a major obstacle to the effectiveness of the warranty against latent defects. The shortness of the time-limit set by the Code has also given rise to by-pass strategies, mostly unsuccessful, consisting in raising other grounds rather than warranty against latent defects i.e. mistake, fraud, lack of conformity, contractual or tortious liability, etc.

The question of the conformity of the former “short period” with Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights was raised on the grounds that it constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial. The vagueness of the concept of “short period” would deprive purchasers of an effective access to justice, failing a clear and precise determination of the conditions for the exercise of the right. This was not the opinion of the Court of Cassation, who pointed out that the right to a trial may be restricted “insofar as it is not affected in its very essence by provisions, in particular regarding time-limits, whose clarity and consistency are insufficient”. According to it, the concept of “short period”, even if Article 1648 does not specify a specific duration, is clear in its object and “of simple application according to established case law” . The fact that the use of the thing is partially or totally compromised and the concern to avoid a loss of evidence justifies the requirement of a prompt reaction of the buyer. The Court of Cassation nevertheless called for a legislative amendment to Article 1648 of the Civil Code in favor of a fixed time-limit.

Ordinance No 2005-136 of 17 February 2005, which transposed into French law Directive No 1999/44 of 25 May 1999, now repealed and replaced by Directive No 2019/771 of 20 May, on certain aspects of the sale and guarantees of consumer goods, partially aligns the rules governing warranty and conformity regime and that of the warranty against latent defects: now, the buyer must bring his action within two years from the discovery of the defect. The Court of Cassation stated that the new two-year period applies only to contracts concluded after the entry into force of the ordinance, i.e. 19 February 2005, and that the new wording of Article 1648 had no interpretative value for the “short period” of the former Article 1648  . However, the clarifications provided by the legislator and case law do not put an end to all the issues raised by the application of Article 1648.

 Cass. com., 11 December 2007, LawLex201200001503JBJ.

 CA Bordeaux, 12 December 2006, LawLex200700000782JBJ.

 CA Rennes, 6 September 2001, LawLex200500005573JBJ; CA Orléans, November 14, 2011, LawLex201200000914JBJ. 

 Cass. 1re civ., 14 May 1996, LawLex200400003432JBJ; CA Douai, 28 June 1999, LawLex200500004132JBJ.

 CA Chambéry, 29 October 1990, LawLex200500009571JBJ; CA Rennes, 28 November 1997, LawLex200500005614JBJ.

 CA Rouen, 8 November 2001, LawLex200500004117JBJ.

 Cass. com., 31 January 1995, LawLex200500003692JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 21 March 2000, LawLex200400003427JBJ.

 Cass. 1re civ., 13 February 2013, LawLex201300000308JBJ.

French Consumer Law

629. Limitation for bringing action

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

629. Limitation for bringing 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