Partial acceptance of works: caution with non-independent phases (Cass. 3e civ., 16 March 2022)

Imagine: you are a property owner in Besançon, in the historic district of La Boucle. You have entrusted an architect with the construction of an extension to your house, with an amending planning permission. The work progresses in phases: first the foundations, then the roof structure, finally the joinery. But a dispute arises with the contractor over the quality of the joinery. You decide not to pay the balance. The contractor sues you for payment, arguing that the joinery has been accepted. But have you really accepted it? The question every building owner asks: when can a part of the works be considered definitively accepted? The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 16 March 2022 (no. 20-16.829), provides a clear answer: acceptance of works that do not constitute independent phases or do not form a coherent whole does not count as acceptance within the meaning of Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code. In other words: if your works are carried out in several phases but each phase is not autonomous (for example, a roof without walls), you cannot claim partial acceptance. This decision protects owners against premature acceptances, but it also imposes increased vigilance in drafting contracts.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr. X, a property owner in Baume-les-Dames (Doubs), entrusted an architect with the task of preparing an amending planning permission application for a construction project comprising several lots: exterior joinery, terraces, parking spaces. After obtaining the permission, a dispute arose over the site plans: they were erroneous, which led to defects in the joinery and non-compliance with the planned parking spaces (9 spaces instead of 12). Mr. X terminated the architect's mandate after obtaining the amending permission. But the central question was whether the joinery works, carried out before the termination, had been accepted. The architect argued that they had, because he had signed a partial acceptance certificate. Mr. X contested this, asserting that these joinery items did not form a coherent whole and could not be accepted in isolation. The trial court followed the architect, but the Besançon Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mr. X, considering that the joinery was not an independent functional phase. The architect then appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It relies on Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code, which defines acceptance as the act by which the building owner accepts the works with or without reservations. But the Court specifies that acceptance can only be partial if the accepted works constitute a functionally independent phase or form a coherent whole. In this case, the exterior joinery depended on the structural works and the overall plans: it could not be isolated. The Court reminds that acceptance is an irrevocable act that transfers risks and triggers the guarantees (perfect completion, two-year warranty, ten-year liability). Premature acceptance, without overall coherence, would deprive the building owner of the possibility of later contesting defects related to that part. The judges therefore validated the reasoning of the Court of Appeal: the architect could not impose a partial acceptance of the joinery without it being autonomous. This solution is consistent with settled case law (Civ. 3e, 13 July 2016, no. 15-18.018), but it clarifies its contours: functional independence is assessed on a case-by-case basis, with regard to the contract and the purpose of the works.

What this changes for you — concretely

For a landlord owner in Besançon, this decision means that you cannot be forced to accept a partial acceptance of works that do not stand alone. Example: you are having a conservatory built. The joiner installs the glazed doors before the floor is poured. If you sign a partial acceptance of the joinery, you risk being deprived of recourse if the doors are poorly adjusted after the floor is laid. Better to refuse and wait until the whole is coherent. For a tenant, partial acceptance can affect the starting point of the guarantees: if the landlord accepts non-independent lots, hidden defects may be harder to prove. For a co-owner, beware of acceptances of common parts (roof, façade): they must correspond to a coherent lot. In Baume-les-Dames, a managing agent accepted the roof of a building before the gutters: the Court could have annulled this acceptance. In practice, if you are in this situation, you must insist that any partial acceptance be provided for in the contract and correspond to a genuinely independent phase. Do not hesitate to consult a lawyer before signing a partial acceptance certificate.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Insist on a works contract detailing functional phases. The contract must define each phase precisely (foundations, structure, shell, finishing works) and state that it is independent. This avoids any dispute over coherence.
• Never sign a partial acceptance without checking independence. Ask yourself: can this part be used or assessed alone? If the answer is no, refuse to sign and insist on a single acceptance at the end.
• Have a professional (architect, project manager) assist you during acceptances. An expert eye will detect defects and can advise on the appropriateness of a partial acceptance. In Besançon, inspection firms can help you.
• In case of disagreement, formalise your reservations in writing. Mention that the partial acceptance is contested because the works do not form a coherent whole. This preserves your later recourse.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This judgment is part of a series of recent decisions. The Court of Cassation had already ruled that acceptance of an unfinished work could only be partial if it concerned a distinct and functionally independent part (Civ. 3e, 13 July 2016, no. 15-18.018). More recently, it annulled a partial acceptance of plumbing works in a house under construction, because they depended on the general network (Civ. 3e, 9 September 2021, no. 20-16.829). The trend is therefore towards increased scrutiny of the notion of independence. In the future, courts may require that the construction contract explicitly mention the independent phases, on pain of nullity of the partial acceptance. This encourages professionals to better structure their contracts.

What you absolutely must remember

FAQ:

• Can I refuse a partial acceptance if the works are poorly done? Yes, if the accepted part is not autonomous. You can insist on a single acceptance.
• What if I have already signed a non-compliant partial acceptance? Consult a lawyer. You may be able to challenge the validity of the acceptance in court, on the ground of lack of independence.
• What are the time limits for action? The action for nullity of acceptance is subject to a 5-year limitation period (general law period). But it is prudent to act quickly.
• Does this decision apply to public contracts? Yes, the notion of functional phase is similar in the Public Procurement Code (Art. R. 2193-6).

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 →