The judges first designated as unfair the clauses which did not set a deadline for the filing of the building permit or for the completion of the work, leaving the builder free to advance the project as he pleased.
A contract for the construction of a detached house may contain numerous abusive clauses which have just been underlined by the Court of Cassation. These clauses appear in construction contracts with supply of plan, ie in construction contracts which include a design mission and a construction mission. These clauses had been denounced by an association for the defense of private customers of the manufacturers.
The judges first designated as unfair the clauses which did not set a deadline for the filing of the building permit or for the completion of the work, leaving the builder free to advance the project as he pleased. Moreover, the clauses which place the customer in charge of the preparation procedures for the connection of public services and the direct payment for these services are also abusive.
The modifications of the project the responsibility of the professional
The law requires the manufacturer to contact the dealers for these services in order to quantify these costs and to mention them in an appendix to the contract so that its customer knows precisely the costs not included in the price.
Similarly, the Court ruled, it is not up to the client but to the professional to take charge of the modifications to the project linked to a possible bringing into conformity of the work with the rules of town planning. It is the builder who develops the project, specify the judges, and its price must be final.
save up to 70% on your borrower insurance
Other clauses encountered in contracts have been declared unfair but they are of a more technical nature. Among the general clauses, the magistrates have also ruled that the contract should mention the ten-year liability insurance, the subscription of which is compulsory for the builder, in order to ensure sufficient information for the consumer on the extent of his rights.
(Cass. Civ 1, 15.6.2022, R 18-16.968).
Reproduction forbidden.