In construction law, the acceptance of a completed project can occur in two ways: tacit acceptance and judicial acceptance. Tacit acceptance relies on the client’s clear intention to accept the work, even if they do not explicitly say so. This is not spelled out in the Civil Code but is recognized by courts if the client has unambiguously shown they are satisfied with the work. However, actions like moving into the building, paying the bill, or signing a completion form are not enough on their own. If the client has raised serious concerns or clearly refused to accept the work, tacit acceptance cannot be assumed. Judicial acceptance works differently. It is not based on the client's wishes but is a decision made by a judge. In this case, the judge imposes acceptance if the work is objectively ready to be accepted, regardless of the client’s approval or rejection. This form of acceptance is not about the client’s intent but about the physical and legal readiness of the project. A recent decision by the Court of Cassation highlighted the confusion between these two types of acceptance. In one case, an appellate court refused to record the acceptance of a house because the construction workers were not part of the legal proceedings, which limited the ability to challenge the decision. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this ruling, emphasizing that tacit acceptance is based on the client’s prior intention. The judge’s role in this situation is not to decide on acceptance but to confirm that it has already occurred, even if the construction companies are not present in court. Understanding the difference between the client’s intent and the judge’s authority is crucial in construction law. This distinction helps clarify complex legal situations and ensures that rights related to construction guarantees are properly upheld. It allows for more accurate legal decisions and better protection of the interests of all parties involved in a construction project.