Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code defines acceptance as the act by which the project owner accepts a completed work, either with or without reservations. This acceptance can happen amicably, judicially, or even tacitly, as interpreted by legal rulings. Recent legal interpretations have clarified the differences between these forms of acceptance. Judicial acceptance requires a contradictory procedure, meaning that the constructor must be involved in the process. In contrast, tacit acceptance, not explicitly mentioned in the text, is based on the project owner's clear intention to accept the work, often shown through actions like taking possession or making payments. The article states that acceptance marks the beginning of the guarantee period for perfect completion, which lasts one year, and also triggers longer guarantees, such as the decennial and biennial ones, but only if the work has been accepted. Amicable acceptance is typically an explicit declaration by the project owner, often recorded in a meeting minutes, and it requires the constructor's participation or at least their regular notification. If amicable acceptance is not possible, judicial acceptance may be considered by the court if the work is in a condition that allows acceptance. However, the Court of Cassation emphasized that judicial acceptance cannot be decided without the presence of the constructors, as their participation is a key requirement. In a notable 2026 case, the court ruled that the absence of the constructors at the instance prevented the court from declaring judicial acceptance. This decision returned the focus to the possibility of tacit acceptance, which does not require the presence of the constructors. The court clarified that tacit acceptance is based on the project owner's clear intention to accept the work, which can be demonstrated through actions like taking possession, making payments, or continuing with the project without significant objections. The court emphasized that the judge can recognize tacit acceptance even if the constructors are not involved in the legal proceedings. In the case under review, the sellers of a house completed in 2016 sold it in 2017, and the buyers claimed defects and sought liability. The court of appeal initially rejected any form of acceptance, citing the absence of the constructors. However, the Court of Cassation upheld the rejection of judicial acceptance but criticized the court of appeal for not examining whether the sellers had shown an unequivocal will to accept the work through their actions. The ruling now requires trial judges to look at factual elements, such as possession, payment, or lack of objection, to determine if tacit acceptance occurred, even in the absence of the constructors. This decision highlights the importance of clearly defining the indicators of acceptance to ensure the proper application of legal guarantees.