Reference decision: cc • No. 18-14.736 • 2019-05-09 • View the decision →
Imagine: you have just bought a house in Mimizan. A few months later, you discover that the roof is infested with termites. You sue the seller in court for latent defects (a hidden defect that renders the property unfit for its use). But the limitation period (the legal time to act) is two years from the discovery of the defect. You acted in time, but the proceedings drag on. You realise that you should have also sued the builder for defective construction. Too late? The Court of Cassation has just said no, under certain conditions. Explanation.
The facts: a story like many others
Mr. and Mrs. D. operate an SCEA (Société Civile d'Exploitation Agricole) in Mont-de-Marsan. In 2012, they buy a complex agricultural machine from the company Class réseau agricole. Very quickly, the machine breaks down. In 2013, they sue the seller before the tribunal de grande instance to obtain an expert report. In parallel, in April 2014, they sue the manufacturer, the company Grégoire, to obtain rescission of the sale (annulment) and reimbursement of the price. The manufacturer raises the limitation period: the action for latent defects must be brought within two years of the discovery of the defect. However, the machine was delivered in 2012 and the claim against the manufacturer dates from 2014, i.e., more than two years later.
But the D. spouses retort: the action brought in 2013 against the seller interrupted the limitation period (suspended the time limit). And this interruption also benefits the action against the manufacturer, because both actions pursue the same goal: to be compensated for the defect. The Bordeaux Court of Appeal agrees with them. The manufacturer appeals to the Court of Cassation.
The reasoning of the court — analysed
The Court of Cassation begins by recalling the principle: in law, the interruption of the limitation period cannot, in principle, extend from one action to another. This is what Article 2241 of the Civil Code (which governs the interruption of the limitation period by a legal claim) provides. In other words, if you sue Mr. X for one reason, that does not interrupt the limitation period for suing Mr. Y for another reason.
But the Court adds an exception: it is otherwise when the two actions, although having a distinct cause (a different legal basis: here, the action against the seller is based on the warranty for latent defects, that against the manufacturer on contractual liability), pursue the same ends. In this case, both actions aimed at obtaining compensation for the same damage (the defective machine). Consequently, the second action is virtually included in the first. The limitation period is therefore deemed interrupted for both.
This reasoning is an important development: previously, judges required identity of cause and object. Now, identity of end suffices. This makes life easier for litigants who, by acting against a first responsible party, can preserve their rights against others.
What this means for you — practically
For property owners: if you discover a defect in your house and you sue the seller, you will also be able, later, to sue the builder or manufacturer, even if the two-year period has expired, provided that both actions seek the same compensation. Example: in Mont-de-Marsan, a property owner discovers cracks due to a foundation defect. He sues the seller for latent defects. Later, he learns that the builder is known for poor workmanship. He can also sue the builder, even if the time limit has expired, because both actions seek compensation for the same damage.
For tenants: if you suffer a disturbance of enjoyment (for example, water infiltration) and you sue the landlord, you may also be able to sue the co-owner or the management company if the cause is the same.
For property professionals: be vigilant. This case law broadens the range of potentially liable persons. A developer could be sued several years later if a first action was brought against another party.
Caution however: the link between the two actions must be close. It is not enough that both actions concern the same property. They must pursue the same ends, i.e., compensation for the same prejudice. If one seeks compensation for material damage and the other for personal injury, the interruption will not extend.
Four tips to avoid this type of dispute
- Act quickly: as soon as you discover a problem, consult a lawyer. The two-year period for latent defects runs from the discovery of the defect. Do not delay.
- Identify all potential responsible parties: seller, builder, manufacturer, architect, etc. Even if you are not sure of their liability, mention them in your claim to interrupt the limitation period in respect of them.
- Have the defects recorded: call an expert or a bailiff to produce a report. This will allow you to prove the date of discovery of the defect and support your case.
- Keep all documents: contracts, invoices, correspondence, expert reports. They will be essential to demonstrate the link between the actions.
Further reading: related case law and developments
The Court of Cassation had already initiated this trend in a judgment of 28 March 2018 (No. 17-10.291) where it held that the interruption of the limitation period for an action in contractual liability could extend to an action for latent defects, provided that both actions sought the same compensation. The 2019 decision confirms and clarifies this solution.
Conversely, in a judgment of 6 July 2016 (No. 15-15.750), the Court refused extension when the actions were based on completely different causes (contractual liability and tort liability) and did not pursue the same end. The line is therefore subtle.
In the future, it is likely that judges will continue to interpret the notion of "same ends" broadly to protect victims. But caution, each case is specific. It is better not to rely on this case law to act late.
Key points to remember
- Principle: the interruption of the limitation period (by a claim) only benefits the action brought.
- Exception: if a second action pursues the same ends as the first (compensation for the same prejudice), the interruption extends.
- Condition: both actions must aim at the same damage, even if their legal bases are different.
- Pitfall: if the ends are different (e.g., compensation for material damage vs. compensation for moral damage), extension does not apply.
- Reflex: in case of a dispute, sue all potential responsible parties in the same document, even as a precautionary measure.
Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.
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 →
