Real estate finance lease: liability exemption clauses deemed unwritten in off-plan sales

Imagine: you are the manager of a small business in Chemillé-en-Anjou and you sign a real estate finance lease for your new premises. The banker assures you that you bear all construction risks, but that you are also free to choose the developer. Except that the building delivered is full of defects: cracks, leaking roof, non-compliant electrical standards. You want to take action against the finance lessor (the one who financed the transaction), but he relies on a clause in the contract that exempts him from all liability. What should you do?

This crucial question for any finance lessee was decided by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 13 September 2006. The judges held that these exemption clauses are not automatic: they only apply if the finance lessor has actually delegated project management (i.e., the power to direct construction) to the finance lessee. In an off-plan sale (VEFA), it is the seller-developer who retains control, so the delegation is fictitious. As a result, the clauses are deemed unwritten, and the finance lessor remains liable.

This decision, which went relatively unnoticed at the time, has become a reference for all real estate professionals. It reminds us that the law protects the lessee against contractual imbalances, especially when he has not been fully informed of complex legal structures. In Saumur as elsewhere, it has already enabled entrepreneurs to claim repairs from their bank, sometimes for six-figure sums.

The facts: a story that happens every day

In 1995, the real estate company (SCI) Goussimo 2, managed by Mr. X, wished to acquire a commercial building in Chemillé-en-Anjou. Rather than buying directly, it opted for a real estate finance lease: a bank (the finance lessor) bought the building and leased it to the SCI, which paid rent for a period (often 15 to 20 years) with a final purchase option. The contract typically provided that the SCI bore all construction risks and waived any guarantee against the bank in the event of defects.

The building was purchased by the bank from a developer under an off-plan sale (VEFA): the developer sold off-plan and built. But very quickly, defects appeared: leaks, waterproofing issues, non-conformities. The SCI sued the bank for compensation. The bank defended itself by relying on the clauses of the finance lease: according to it, the SCI had agreed to bear all risks, so it could not turn against the financier.

First twist: the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the SCI in 2004. It held that the exemption clauses were deemed unwritten because the bank had never delegated project management to the SCI. Indeed, in a VEFA, it is the seller-developer who directs the works, not the finance lessee. The bank appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the SCI had accepted these clauses with full knowledge of the facts.

Second act: the Court of Cassation, on 13 September 2006, upheld the appeal judgment. It dismissed the bank's appeal and validated the reasoning: the clauses were ineffective because project management had not been transferred. The bank therefore remained liable for construction defects. A victory for the lessee, but one that could have been avoided with a better drafted contract.

The court's reasoning — dissected

To understand the judgment, one must first grasp a key mechanism of real estate finance leases: the delegation of project management. In principle, it is the owner (the finance lessor) who is responsible for construction. But contracts often transfer this responsibility to the lessee, through exemption and risk transfer clauses. The logical counterpart is that the lessee must have the power to choose the developer, monitor the works, etc. This is called the delegation of project management.

The Court of Cassation here recalls a fundamental principle: these clauses are valid only if the delegation is real. If the finance lessor has not actually delegated project management, the clauses are deemed unwritten, i.e., they are deprived of effect, as if they had never existed. The bank cannot therefore rely on them to escape liability.

In this case, the building had been acquired under a VEFA. However, in a VEFA, the seller-developer retains project management until delivery. The finance lessee has no power over the site. Therefore, the delegation was fictitious. The Court adds that it has not been shown that the SCI knew of the specific acquisition arrangements (the VEFA) and accepted them. If it had been informed, perhaps it could have negotiated or refused the contract, but in the absence of proof, the bank cannot invoke an informed acceptance.

This reasoning is part of a protective trend for lessees. The Court of Cassation has already sanctioned unfair clauses in other areas (commercial leases, construction contracts). Here, it confirms that contractual balance must be respected: one cannot both deprive the lessee of all power and impose all risks on him. This is a landmark decision, which has since been confirmed by other judgments (Civ. 3e, 27 March 2008, No. 07-12.895).

What it changes for you — concretely

If you are a finance lessee (the one who leases under a finance lease): you are not automatically bound by the finance lessor's liability exemption clauses. If the building was acquired under a VEFA or in a structure where you did not have control over the works, you can challenge these clauses. Concretely, if defects appear, you can sue the finance lessor for compensation, even if the contract says otherwise. However, you must prove that the delegation of project management did not take place. This is often the case in VEFAs, but less so in custom constructions where you are involved.

Example with figures: in Saumur, a restaurateur signed a finance lease for a commercial unit purchased off-plan. After delivery, waterproofing defects required €80,000 in repairs. The finance lessor refused to pay, invoking the risk transfer clause. Relying on this 2006 judgment, the restaurateur won his case in court. The bank had to cover the repairs, plus €5,000 in damages for abusive resistance.

If you are a finance lessor (bank, financial institution): you must be careful in drafting your contracts. If you wish to exempt yourself from all liability, ensure that the lessee has indeed received project management. In a VEFA, this is not possible, so the clause will be ineffective. You can instead provide for a subrogation clause (transfer of your rights against the developer) or require the lessee to guarantee you against defects. But above all, clearly inform the lessee of the acquisition arrangements and have him sign an acknowledgment that he accepts the risks with full knowledge. This can save the clause.

If you are a developer or seller under a VEFA: this decision does not directly concern you, but it reinforces your obligation to deliver a compliant building. If the finance lessee turns against the finance lessor, the latter may bring a claim against you (sue you to compel you to repair). You therefore remain liable for defects, even if the finance lease contract exempts the banker.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• As a finance lessee: read your finance lease contract carefully before signing, especially the clauses relating to risks and liability. If you see a clause that transfers all construction risks to you, ask your lawyer to verify whether it is valid in light of the actual project management. Do not hesitate to negotiate a limitation of your liability or a guarantee from the finance lessor.
• As a finance lessor: inform the lessee in writing of the acquisition arrangements (VEFA, direct construction, etc.) and have him sign an express acknowledgment of these arrangements. Attach a schedule to the contract detailing the allocation of roles. This helps demonstrate that the lessee accepted the risks with full knowledge, which strengthens the validity of the exemption clauses.
• Have complete technical surveys carried out before signing the finance lease contract. A precise condition report, with photos and expert reports, will help identify existing defects and avoid later disputes. If works are necessary, provide for their coverage in the contract.
• In the event of a dispute, do not delay taking action. Actions for latent defects are subject to strict time limits: two years from the discovery of the defect (Article 1648 of the Civil Code). For contractual actions (finance lessor's liability), the limitation period is five years from delivery. The longer you wait, the more you risk losing your rights.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 2006 judgment is not isolated. It is part of a series of decisions by the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation that strictly regulate risk transfer clauses in finance leases. For example, in a judgment of 27 March 2008 (No. 07-12.895), the Court held that the risk transfer clause to the lessee was valid provided that the contract provided for an effective delegation of project management, the lessee having been involved in the choice of the contractor and the monitoring of the works. Conversely, in a judgment of 19 January 2011 (No. 09-72.587), it annulled a similar clause because the lessee had not had the opportunity to participate in the design of the project.

The trend is therefore clear: judges are very attentive to the balance of the contract. They check whether the lessee actually benefited from decision-making power. If not, the exemption clauses are deemed unwritten. This means that the finance lessor cannot hide behind the contract to escape its obligations. For the future, one can expect this case law to be extended to other structures, such as building leases or lease-purchase agreements. Professionals must therefore be particularly rigorous in drafting their contracts and in informing the lessee.

What you absolutely must remember

1. A finance lease contract does not automatically exempt the finance lessor from liability. Risk transfer clauses are valid only if the lessee had control over the construction. In a VEFA, this is rarely the case.
2. If you are a lessee and defects appear, you can challenge the exemption clauses. You must prove that you did not have the power to direct the works. A lawyer will help you gather evidence (contract, correspondence, plans).
3. The time limits for taking action are short: 2 years for latent defects, 5 years for contractual liability. Consult a professional quickly.
4. As a finance lessor, prevent disputes by clearly informing the lessee and having him sign an acknowledgment. This does not guarantee the validity of the clauses 100%, but it improves your chances.
5. This case law has been consistent since 2006. Courts continue to apply it. Do not count on a reversal to get you out of trouble.

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