Suspensive Condition without Time Limit: When a Property Sale Becomes Void after 6 Years

Imagine: you are the owner of a property in Hérouville-Saint-Clair, you sign a promise to sell your house with a buyer who must obtain planning permission to carry out works. The document does not fix any time limit for this suspensive condition (a condition that suspends the completion of the sale until it is fulfilled). Months pass, then years. Six years later, nothing has been built, the local authority has not even ruled on its local development plan. Can the sale still take place? And if one of the parties wishes to withdraw, what are the risks?

This is the question that any owner or buyer may one day ask themselves, especially when the local administration drags its feet. The decision of the Court of Cassation of 3 February 1982 (no. 80-15.794) provides a clear answer: a suspensive condition without a time limit may be declared void if it is not fulfilled within a period that the parties implicitly considered reasonable.

In this case, the judges considered that six years of waiting, without any indexation of the sale price, exceeded what the parties could have envisaged. Result: the sale fell through, and the sellers obtained compensation for the delay. Analysis of a ruling that still sets a precedent.

The Facts: A Story Like Any Other

In 1973, Mr. Y and his wife, owners of a building in Hérouville-Saint-Clair, signed a synallagmatic promise to sell (a preliminary contract binding both parties) with the X family. The price was fixed, but the sale was subject to two suspensive conditions: firstly, the obtaining of a loan by the buyer; secondly, the obtaining of planning permission, which had already been granted once but had to be renewed. The deadline for reiteration of the sale (signing of the deed of conveyance) was set for 15 January 1974.

Alas: the initial planning permission was annulled, and the local authority did not rule on the new local development plan (POS) that would allow a new permission to be granted. The years went by. In 1979, six years after the signing, the sellers sued the buyers to have the promise declared void (annulled due to non-fulfilment of the condition). The buyers, for their part, claimed specific performance of the sale.

The Court of Appeal of Caen ruled in favour of the sellers: since the suspensive condition was not subject to any time limit, the parties could not have envisaged that it would be fulfilled more than six years later, especially as the price had not been indexed (no revision clause to account for inflation). The buyers appealed to the Court of Cassation, but the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal in a landmark ruling.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relied on Article 1175 of the Civil Code (in its version then in force), which provides that every condition must be fulfilled in the manner that the parties have presumably intended and understood that it should be. In clear terms: when you set a suspensive condition, you must respect what the parties have implicitly provided, even if it is not written in black and white.

Here, the contract did not say "the planning permission must be obtained within two years" or "within a reasonable time". But the trial judges (the Court of Appeal) sovereignly considered that six years was too long. Why? Because no indexation of the price was provided: in 1973, the price was, say, 100,000 francs. Six years later, with inflation, that same price no longer represented the same value. If the parties had imagined such a long wait, they would have provided for a revaluation clause. But they did not. Therefore, implicitly, they did not envisage such a long period.

The Court thus validated the reasoning of the appeal judges: the suspensive condition is void, the sale can no longer take place. And it went further: the sellers had consented "as a flat-rate compensation" for the delay caused — in other words, they had accepted an indemnity for the loss suffered due to the wait. The Court admitted that this indemnity may be due, even if the sale did not take place.

This is an important decision because it reminds that the silence of the contract on the time limit is not an open door to indefinite waiting. Judges can, on a case-by-case basis, decide that the time elapsed is excessive and put an end to the transaction.

What This Means for You — Concretely

If you are a seller: you are not imprisoned for life by a promise to sell whose condition is not fulfilled. If years pass without the buyer obtaining his planning permission (or his loan), you can ask the court to declare the promise void. Warning: you must act, do not let the situation drag on. In our example, the sellers waited six years before suing. That is long, but they succeeded. If you are in a similar situation in Falaise, where planning permissions can be blocked by appeals, do not hesitate to consult a lawyer at the first signs of blockage.

If you are a buyer: you must be proactive. Do not think that time is on your side. If you have signed a promise with a suspensive condition without a time limit, do everything to fulfil it quickly. Otherwise, the seller could have it declared void, and you would lose your right to buy at the agreed price. And if, as in this case, you have already paid a deposit (a sum paid to reserve the property), you risk losing it.

For real estate professionals (estate agents, notaries): this ruling is a reminder of the importance of setting a time limit in suspensive conditions. Even if the law does not impose a precise time limit, case law invites you to do so. Example: "the suspensive condition must be fulfilled no later than 31 December 2025. Failing this, the promise will be automatically void." This avoids any ambiguity.

A numerical example: imagine a property in Hérouville-Saint-Clair sold for €200,000 in 2015, with a suspensive condition of obtaining planning permission without a time limit. In 2021, the planning permission is still not obtained. The seller can request the voidance, and if the price has not been indexed, he can resell the property to another buyer at the 2021 market price (say €250,000). The initial buyer, on the other hand, will have lost his right to buy at €200,000 and possibly a deposit.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Set a precise time limit in the suspensive condition. For example: "The suspensive condition must be fulfilled within 12 months from the signing of the promise." This avoids any interpretation.
• Provide for a price indexation clause if the time limit is long. If the condition may take several years, index the price to an index (e.g. the construction cost index). Thus, the seller is protected against inflation.
• Actively follow up on the file. If you are a buyer, chase up the authorities, banks, architects. Do not wait for things to happen on their own. A six-year blockage is often the result of inaction by both parties.
• Consult a lawyer at the first signs of difficulty. If the planning permission is refused, if the bank is slow, if the local authority does not respond, seek advice. Prompt action can save the sale or, on the contrary, have it properly annulled without unnecessary costs.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1982 decision is not isolated. The Court of Cassation has had occasion to clarify its position several times. For example, in a ruling of 19 March 2008 (no. 07-11.726), it held that the suspensive condition of obtaining a loan, even without a time limit, must be fulfilled within a reasonable period, and that the seller could put the buyer on notice to justify his steps.

More recently, the Commercial Chamber reminded (ruling of 8 September 2009, no. 08-18.463) that the trial judges have sovereign power to assess the reasonableness of the time limit, depending on the circumstances: nature of the condition, conduct of the parties, economic context.

The trend is therefore constant: the courts do not like indeterminate situations. They favour legal certainty and contractual good faith (the obligation to act loyally). If a condition drags on without valid reason, the contract can be annulled.

For the future, it is likely that the judges will continue in this direction, especially with the multiplication of appeals against planning permissions. The time limits for obtaining them may lengthen, but the parties cannot remain bound indefinitely. Hence the importance of drafting clear clauses.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I cancel a promise to sell if the suspensive condition is not fulfilled after 5 years even though no time limit was provided?
Yes, you can ask the court to declare the promise void. The judges will assess whether the time limit is reasonable. Five years is generally considered too long, especially if no indexation was provided.

What should I do if I am a buyer and the seller wants to cancel the promise due to excessive delay?
You must demonstrate that you have taken all necessary steps to fulfil the condition (e.g. evidence of planning applications, reminders). If you remained passive, your chances are slim. Consult a lawyer promptly.

What is the reasonable time limit according to case law?
There is no fixed duration. It depends on the circumstances: two years may be reasonable for a complex planning permission, six years is not. The absence of price indexation is a strong indicator that the parties did not envisage a long wait.

Can I claim damages for the loss suffered due to the wait?
Yes, as in this case. If the seller has suffered loss (e.g. inability to resell the property for six years), he can claim an indemnity. The buyer can also claim if he proves fault on the part of the seller.

Is it compulsory to index the price in case of a suspensive condition without a time limit?
No, but it is strongly recommended. The absence of indexation favours the party seeking voidance, as it shows that the parties did not envisage a long delay.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →