VSome courts have already ruled that the seller of a dwelling who hides the presence of an annoying neighbor or an insolvent tenant is guilty of deception. What about someone who conceals the existence of a notoriously well-known scourge, such as, in Martinique, the periodic stranding of Sargassum seaweed? This is the question posed by the following case.
In November 2016, Mr.me X buys the house of Y, which is in the town of Robert, forty meters from the Atlantic coast, not directly by the sea, but behind a first row of houses and a road. In April 2018, she requested the cancellation of the sale and the restitution of the price (230,000 euros).
She affirms that she would never have bought this house if she had known that she was regularly affected by the fumes of toxic gases caused by the decomposition, on the coast, of brown algae. Indeed, she explains, air quality was a “decisive element » of her purchase, because she has a child with asthma.
Sore throat and headache, corrosion
She assures that the sellers, questioned by her on several occasions about the presence of Sargassum, lied to her – which is confirmed by a witness –, by assuring that their house was spared. She shows a reportage televised, shot in June 2015, in which Mr. Y, at the head of a collective, protests against the nuisances that gases cause in his neighborhood (sore throats and headaches, taps affected by corrosion, household appliances that break down, etc.).
She assures that the Ys took advantage of a lull to repaint the rooms and change the taps, in order to make people believe that their house was healthy. The Ys reply that they cannot have intentionally concealed well-known information. They further deny having known that Ms.me X was asthmatic.
Sellers win at first instance and on appeal. The court of Fort-de-France considers that Mme X should have known about the situation, since she has lived in the town of Robert since 2013. The Fort-de-France Court of Appeal certainly admits, the November 24, 2020which the Ys have “answered falsely” to questions from the buyer, with “ the desire to deceive ». But she refuses to cancel the sale for “dol”. What the Court of Cassation, seized by Mme X, reproaches him, on June 15 (2022, 21-13.286) by specifying that, given the nature ” say again “ questioning it, they knew that their lie was about a “ determining factor » for her.
The court also censures the refusal of the Martinican jurisdiction to cancel the sale for ” hidden defect “as claimed on a secondary basis by Me Taniev Labéjof, Mr.me X. This one assured that the pollution was a hidden defect, since he returned the house “unfit for purpose” (the dwelling). The Court of Appeal replied that “ an external phenomenon to the thing sold cannot constitute a latent defect.
The Court of Cassation has however already ruled the opposite, regarding the noise of the boilers of a building, audible in an apartment (03-12.497). Gathered this time in training of eleven magistrates, instead of the usual three, it reiterates forcefully that the Civil Code (item 1641) does not provide for the exclusion introduced by the Court of Appeal.
It does not follow the opinion of the Advocate General, according to which “the decomposition of sargassum algae on a coastal strip of the foreshore which is not directly adjacent to the land purchased by Mme X cannot be considered as a defect or a defect inherent in the real estate sold”. It refers the parties to this one, differently composed: the sale should finally be canceled.