A house bought in 2007 starts to show cracks. The judges find old cracks and others that are progressive, in the area of remedial works carried out below ground level by the sellers themselves in 1980; before the sale, the sellers had had them filled and covered with render. The deed excluded the warranty against hidden defects (garantie des vices cachés): does that clause protect the sellers? No: on 7 March 2024, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) dismissed their appeal against the judgment that found them in bad faith and ordered a price reduction of €202,267.20 out of €325,000.
The facts
By a notarial deed of 1 October 2007, three sellers sold a house to a couple for €325,000. After cracks appeared, the buyers obtained the appointment of a court expert (expert judiciaire). The buyer, who had become the sole owner following her divorce, sued the sellers under the hidden-defect warranty, seeking a price reduction and compensation for her losses.
Adopting the conclusions of the expert’s report, the Court of Appeal found numerous old cracks that had not reopened and others that were progressive, in the area of remedial works carried out below ground level in 1980 by the sellers themselves, without a prior geotechnical study or a structural study of the building, and made worse by the 2003 drought and the clay nature of the soil. Before the sale, the sellers had had the cracks filled and the facades rendered. On 19 June 2020 the Paris Court of Appeal ordered them, jointly and severally, to pay €202,267.20 as a price reduction and €7,800 in damages.
The sellers appealed. They argued that the burden of proving that the cracks were apparent had been placed on them, that the buyer knew of the cracks and of the nature of the soil, having received the keys nearly two months before the deed, which mentioned a risk prevention plan (plan de prévention des risques) prescribed for clay shrinkage and swelling, and that their works, done with a DIY-minded neighbour, were only meant to improve the conditions of the sale.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 7 March 2024, appeal no. 20-17.790, unreported).
It recalled that the Court of Appeal had found, on the one hand, “that the fact that old cracks may have been visible under the render did not establish that the defect was apparent and that non-professional buyers could therefore know the extent of the damage existing before the sale”, and on the other hand, “that the sellers, who had known of the structural problems of the building since 1980 and of the extent of the cracking that reappeared in 2003, had, through these filling works, sought to conceal them” (translated from the French).
It then concluded: “It is without reversing the burden of proof that the Court of Appeal, which did not have to answer the submissions allegedly ignored, nor to carry out the inquiry referred to in the third limb, deduced, within its sovereign power of assessment, that the buyer had shown that the defects were hidden at the time of the sale and that the sellers were in bad faith, so that the hidden-defect warranty exclusion clause had to be set aside.”
Bad faith is inferred here from knowledge of the defects and from works intended to conceal them. The clause falls as a result: article 1643 of the Civil Code, relied on in the appeal, allows a seller to exclude all warranty by contract only for defects of which the seller was unaware.
The Court did not rule on the amount, which the appeal did not dispute. As an unreported dismissal, the decision upholds an assessment of specific facts that is left to the trial judges: it does not say that any filling of cracks amounts to bad faith, nor that a crack visible under render is always a hidden defect.
What this changes for valuation
The price reduction still has to be quantified. Once the clause is set aside, the action estimatoire under article 1644 of the Civil Code applies: the buyer keeps the property and recovers part of the price. Here, €202,267.20 out of €325,000, about 62 %: the scale possible when the defect affects the structure, the decision saying nothing of the calculation.
Measuring the value of the property as it was. The valuer establishes the market value (valeur vénale) of the property at the date of the sale, defects included, and compares it with the price paid for a property presented as sound. That value reflects the cost of any stabilisation works quantified by a technical specialist, the uncertainty about their effectiveness and buyers’ reluctance. Comparison with sales of properties affected by similar defects is the reference method; failing that, the report starts from the value of the sound property, deducts the cost of the works and applies a reasoned discount for the residual risk (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.1 and ch. 2). The cost of works and the price reduction remain two separate figures, as shown in Hidden defect: the cost of works is judged before the price cut.
A concealed defect is not a repaired defect. A defect repaired by a third party after the sale follows a different rule (Hidden defect fixed by a third party: price reduction still open); here, the filling repaired nothing, it concealed.
At the inspection, what the render reveals. Fresh render, filled cracks, traces of cracking, a municipality exposed to clay shrinkage and swelling: the report records them at the inspection (Charte, Title II, § 9.2.1), states that property valuation does not include checking the structure (Title I, § 1.1, and Title II, end of chapter 10) and adds a reservation recommending a study (Title I, § 2.2).
Warranty, damages, fraud: different measures. Under article 1645 of the Civil Code, a seller who knew of the defects also owes all damages, with no ceiling set by market value (Hidden defect known to the seller: market value caps nothing). Here, the Court of Appeal awarded €7,800 in damages, without the decision stating their basis or detail. Structural works kept quiet may also ground an action for fraud (dol): annulment, with the buyer returning the value of the use of the house (Concealed foundation works: sale annulled, use to be paid for), or the excess price if the property is kept (Seller’s fraud: claiming the excess price without annulment).
What the valuer takes from it
- Cracks filled and rendered over before the sale can remain a hidden defect for a non-professional buyer.
- A seller who knew of the defects and sought to conceal them is in bad faith: the warranty exclusion clause is set aside.
- The report measures the price reduction at the date of the sale: value of the property as it was, defects included, against the price paid; the decision does not rule on that calculation.
- The report records the signs visible at the inspection, says what the inspection cannot measure and recommends a structural study.
- Warranty, damages or fraud: the report quantifies separately the heads of claim specific to each legal basis.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide I paid too much: can I challenge the price? and the glossary entries vice caché, moins-value and valeur vénale complement this article. On a defect repaired by a third party: Hidden defect fixed by a third party: price reduction still open. On the same theme: Damp wall after buying in France: does the price reflect it? and Hidden defect known to the seller: market value caps nothing. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Cracks appearing after the purchase, under render redone by the seller?
I value the property as it really was on the day of the sale, structural defects included, and the gap with the price paid, in a report your lawyer can produce in support of the price reduction claim.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
