A customer can ask his banker for compensation if he let him sign and if he financed a house construction contract that did not provide, as required by law, a completion and price guarantee in the event manufacturer failure.
But, specified the Court of Cassation, it cannot be asked this banker to assume the totality of the damage.
The Court of Cassation was seized of a construction file that did not comply with the law, without guarantee of delivery of the house, that is to say without guarantee of price and deadlines.
The builder having disappeared while abandoning the site, the client had complained that the bank had granted him a loan on the basis of a contract which did not contain the protections required by law. And justice had given him reason. The banker cannot consider himself in good standing because he would have warned the borrower by inserting a clause in his contract to remind him that he was running a risk by choosing a construction contract that was less expensive but did not comply with security requirements. of the law.
By doing so, the banker made his client lose the guarantee of execution of the works at the agreed prices and deadlines, and the guarantee that the construction would be completed in the event of default by the chosen builder, the magistrates recalled.
However, the customer must also assume his share of the error. The banker only made him lose a chance not to sign such a contract and to sign a more expensive contract with a guarantee. He cannot therefore be claimed compensation which would cover all of the damage subsequently found, confirmed the Court. The damage was shared between the bank and the client.
save on fees and earn up to €500 thanks our comparison of life insurance
(Cass. Civ 3, 11.1.2023, Y 21-18.045).
Reproduction forbidden.