The individual who obtains a credit in fine, repayable in full on the due date, is not entitled to more protections and warnings from the bank than if he obtained a traditional credit repayable monthly.
The Court of Cassation thus rejected the argument of a borrower who maintained that this type of credit gave rise to a particular risk, justifying special warnings, even if the project appeared adapted to his financial capacities.
This borrower, having found himself in difficulties 3 years after having ultimately taken out a loan, believed that the bank should have warned him of the risk of such a system in which the interest rate is generally higher and the higher monthly interest since the remaining capital due does not decrease. He concluded that justice should find fault on the part of the bank and exempt it from reimbursing it, as compensation for its material and moral damages.
No duty to advise, only a duty to provide information
But the banker’s obligation to warn only relates to the unsuitability of the loan to the financial capacities of the borrower and to the resulting risk of indebtedness, the Court of Cassation ruled, whether the loan is repayable by chances or in one go the end.
The bank did not interfere in the affairs of its client to assess the advisability of the operations it undertakes, the court of appeal reminded, and if it did not make the commitment, she has no duty to advise. It only has a duty to provide information on the characteristics of the loan proposed.
The duty to warn is owed to customers who are not informed, that is to say equipped with proven financial knowledge, and when it appears that the credit project could be unsuitable for their financial capacities, taking into account of their income and their real estate assets. And in this case, the value of the borrower’s house could guarantee repayment of his loans, the judges concluded.
(Cass. Com, 8.11.2023, A 22-13.750).
Reproduction forbidden.