Aller au contenu principal
A Court of Appeal cannot be criticised for
Droit-immobilier

A Court of Appeal cannot be criticised for

📅 Decision of 17 May 2026🔄 Updated on 16 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 99 views📖 2 min read

A Court of Appeal cannot be criticised for having held that a sale, granted under the suspensive condition that the buyer obtain a loan from Crédit Agricole, was formed by the fulfilment of the condition, since it states that by making incomplete approaches to the lending institution, the buyer prevented the fulfilment of the suspensive condition and that in this case, in accordance with Article 1178 of the Civil Code, this condition must be deemed fulfilled.

Reference decision: cc • No. 76-13.933 • 1978-04-25 • View decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

It cannot be criticised that a Court of Appeal considered that a sale, granted under the suspensive condition that the buyer obtain a loan from Crédit Agricole, was formed by the fulfilment of the condition, since it states that by making incomplete approaches to the lending institution, the buyer prevented the fulfilment of the suspensive condition and that in this case, in accordance with Article 1178 of the Civil Code, this condition must be deemed fulfilled.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to remember

  • Scrupulously respect the legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (titles, deeds, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice is always cheaper than litigation

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

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.
→ Avocat droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Legal information

  • Number: 76-13.933
  • Court: Cour de cassation

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

First-time buyer blocked by incomplete loan application

A couple in Lyon signs a purchase agreement for a €250,000 flat, with a suspensive condition requiring them to obtain a loan from Crédit Agricole within 45 days. They submit only a partial application, missing key income documents, and the bank refuses the loan. The seller claims the condition failed and demands the deposit.

Practical application:

Under Article 1178 of the Civil Code, if a buyer deliberately prevents the fulfilment of a suspensive condition, the condition is deemed fulfilled. Here, the incomplete application amounts to preventing the condition. The buyer should argue that the condition is deemed fulfilled, thus the sale is binding. They should immediately complete the application properly and notify the seller in writing, referencing this case law to protect their deposit.

2

Landlord frustrated by tenant's loan obstruction

A landlord in Paris agrees to sell a rental property to the tenant for €180,000, subject to the tenant obtaining a mortgage from BNP Paribas. The tenant, having second thoughts, submits a loan application without including rental income from his own property, leading to rejection. The landlord believes the sale has fallen through.

Practical application:

The tenant's omission is a deliberate act preventing the loan condition. Under this case law, the condition is deemed fulfilled, so the sale is valid. The landlord can enforce the sale by sending a formal notice to the tenant to complete the purchase, referencing the court's interpretation. If the tenant refuses, the landlord may seek specific performance in court, relying on the deemed fulfilment rule.

3

Co-owner dispute over sale condition fulfilment

In a co-ownership in Nice, one co-owner (Mr. Dupont) agrees to sell his unit to another co-owner (Mrs. Martin) for €120,000, conditional on Mrs. Martin obtaining a loan from Caisse d'Épargne. Mrs. Martin, after a quarrel with Mr. Dupont over common areas, deliberately delays submitting her loan file, and the bank rejects it due to missing documents. Mr. Dupont claims the condition failed.

Practical application:

Mrs. Martin's delay and missing documents constitute preventing the condition. Under the case law, the condition is deemed fulfilled, so the sale is effective. Mr. Dupont should immediately notify Mrs. Martin in writing that the condition is fulfilled and demand payment. If she fails to pay, he can file a lawsuit to force the sale, citing the deemed fulfilment principle. Both parties should keep all correspondence as evidence.

Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★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