Legal dispute over construction defects

The Court of Appeal of Pau ruled on a legal dispute involving a SCI (Société Civile Immobilière), a type of construction-sale company that managed the building of three structures whose lots were sold in their future completed state. The company’s manager was responsible for ordering, steering, and coordinating the project.

Acceptance date and expert assessment

The acceptance of building C was declared on March 30, 2012. Following an expert assessment, the syndic of the co-owners assigned the SCI, the managing company, and their insurer, with other parties also called upon for guarantees.

Hidden defects and liability

The court determined that hidden defects were present at the time of acceptance, based on the SCI's role as a real estate developer rather than a constructor. It condemned the managing company and the insurer of the architect to compensate the syndic for disorders classified as intermediaries.

Legal person’s competence assessed

The managing company and the insurer of the subcontractor argued that the ability of a legal person master of the work to detect defects should be assessed through its legal representative or the physical person directing it. However, the court dismissed this argument, establishing that the competence of a legal person is assessed based on its object or activities, not the skills of its legal representative.

Acceptance covers visible defects

The court emphasized that the acceptance of a building covers visible defects, disorders, or non-conformity issues that were not subject to reservations. This applies both on contractual grounds and the ten-year liability basis. The apparent nature of the disorder is assessed on the day of acceptance and exclusively in the person of the master of the work. The knowledge of the subsequent buyer is irrelevant, even in cases where the defect was apparent at the time of possession.

Subcontractor’s mission unclear

The court also addressed the subcontractor's mission, noting that the decision to condemn the subcontractor as the author of the main work was criticized. The parties to the subcontracting agreement claimed that only the external plastering lot was assigned to them. The court censured the decision for failing to specify the evidence used to determine the extent of the subcontractor's mission. This issue is crucial for determining responsibilities in both contractual and delictual relations.

Long-standing dispute and next steps

The dispute has been ongoing for over a decade, with the first expert assessment reference dating back to July 25, 2014. The case is being sent back to the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux, and further appeals may prolong the resolution. The main issue in dispute involves a sum of 226,340 €, and the co-owners of the building may need to wait for a resolution, which could take considerable time.