|Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling:
The unique way:
Having regard to Article 1641 of the Civil Code;
Whereas the seller is required to guarantee in respect of hidden defects of the thing sold which render it unfit for the purpose for which it was intended, or which so diminish this use, the buyer would not have acquired or would have paid a lower price if he had known;
Whereas, according to the judgment (Bordeaux, January 13, 2003), the spouses X. .. signed November 25, 1999, a promise indenture for the sale of an apartment owned by Mrs. Y. .. , A disclaimer of warranty reason, including latent defects, was on the act, authorized to enter the premises before signing the deed, Mr and Mrs X. .. found the existence of loud noises from boilers for collective use of the condominium, they refused to repeat the deed and assigned Ms. Y. .. solving sale on the basis of Article 1603 of the Civil Code and have alternative invoked Articles 1641 of the Code;
Whereas for rejecting these claims, holding off the hidden defect can not result from a disorder having its origin in a piece of equipment in the building, outside the apartment;
That in so ruling, the Court of Appeal, which added to the law a restriction that does not, violated the text referred to above;
FOR THESE REASONS:
Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of January 13, 2003, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux shall, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before said stop, and to be granted, the returns to the Court of Appeal of Montpellier;
Condemns Ms. Y. .. the expense;
Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the request of Mrs. Y. .. ;
Said that the audit of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, the above will be sent to be transcribed in the margin or as a result of the broken off;
Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 6 October two thousand and four.
Violates section 1641 of the Civil Code the court of appeal which holds that the lack of sealing a flat roof is a non-compliance, although it noted that it precluded the use of the building under normal conditions (Case 1).
Similarly, violates section 1641 of the Code by adding a restriction to the law she has no court of appeal, to dismiss the action in warranty against hidden defects brought by purchasers of an apartment because loud noises from boilers in the building, holds that the latent defect can not result from a disorder which has its roots in a piece of equipment in the building outside the apartment sold (Case No. 2).
However, the appeals court that holds that the lots were sold for housing and that this individual had a contractual destination deduce exactly the lack of development of individual electricity meters in accordance with standards constitutes a breach of the obligation to deliver and not a hidden defect (Case No. 3).
SALE – Seller – Bonds – Issuance – Action in contract – Difference with the action in warranty against hidden defects
Precedents: A closer: Civil Division 3, 2000-03-15, Bulletin, III, No. 61, p. 42 (cassation), and cases cited. Codes cited: Civil Code 1641.