Droit Immobilier

It is Rightly that a Court of Appeal

📅 Décision du 09 December 1975⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 2 vues📖 2 min de lecture

It is rightly that a Court of Appeal leaves the cost, whatever it may be, of a new sanitation system that alone is capable of allowing normal habitation of the building that the client is entitled to demand, to be borne by the company responsible for the defects.

Reference decision: cc • N° 74-13.118 • 1975-12-09 • Consult the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

It is rightly that a Court of Appeal leaves the cost, whatever it may be, of a new sanitation system that alone is capable of allowing normal habitation of the building that the client is entitled to demand, to be borne by the company responsible for the defects.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly comply with legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, instruments, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice is always cheaper than a lawsuit

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 74-13.118
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 09 décembre 1975

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

First-time buyers facing septic tank failure near Lyon

A young couple bought a newly built house in Saint-Priest (near Lyon) for €250,000. Six months after moving in, the septic tank system failed completely, causing sewage backup and making the house uninhabitable. The builder only offered a partial repair costing €8,000, but an independent expert confirmed a full replacement at €25,000 is the only solution.

Application pratique:

The case law confirms that the builder must bear the entire cost of a new sanitation system when it is the sole means of restoring normal habitation. As first-time buyers, you should formally demand a full replacement, referencing this decision, and reject any inadequate patch. Keep all expert reports, correspondence, and photos as evidence. If the builder refuses, you can take the matter to court to enforce your rights under the ten-year warranty.

2

Landlord dealing with defective drainage in Bordeaux flat

A landlord in central Bordeaux purchased and renovated a flat for €180,000 to let it out. The renovation company’s drainage works were poorly executed, leading to persistent blockages and foul odours that drove tenants away after just three months. The company argues the fix is too expensive (€15,000 for a new system) and proposes a cheaper, temporary repair.

Application pratique:

Under this decision, the company responsible for the defects must cover the full cost of a new drainage system if that is the only way to make the flat habitable again. The landlord should not accept a short-term fix; instead, serve formal notice on the company to carry out a complete replacement, citing this case law. Keep invoices, tenancy agreements, and expert assessments to prove loss of rental income. If necessary, seek a court order to force compliance.

3

Co-owners in Nice battling builder over faulty sewer

In a co-ownership building in Nice, the syndic hired a contractor to replace the main sewer line. The work was defective, causing repeated backups and health hazards for all 12 flats. The contractor offers a €10,000 repair, but a technical survey shows only a new €35,000 installation will solve the issue long-term.

Application pratique:

The case law makes it clear: the contractor must pay for an entirely new sanitation system because it is the only solution to restore normal habitation for all residents. The co-owners, through the syndic, should pass a resolution rejecting the partial fix and demanding the full replacement, citing this decision. They should also instruct a lawyer to send a mise en demeure (formal demand) to the contractor, preserving all expert reports and meeting minutes as evidence. If the contractor still refuses, the co-owners can collectively take legal action.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide