Works acceptance lawyer in Paris: snags, warranties and liability.

Acceptance is the act by which the project owner declares that it accepts the work, with or without snags. Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code provides that it takes place at the request of the more diligent party, either by agreement or, failing that, by the court and that it is in any event, pronounced in the presence of both parties (our translation).

In practice, it takes the form of minutes signed by the project owner and the contractor, which may list snags or be signed without any. Acceptance may also be tacit, where the project owner's conduct shows an unequivocal intention to accept the work. It is the central act of construction law: it triggers the statutory warranties and starts the time limits running.

Acceptance has four main effects. First, it marks the completion of the works contract and releases the balance of the works price. Second, it is the starting point of the three statutory warranties: completion (one year), proper functioning (two years) and ten-year liability (ten years). Third, it extinguishes apparent defects that were not noted, which can no longer be invoked under the builders' liability regime save in the particular case of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation (dol).

Fourth, it transfers custody of the work from the builder to the project owner, which is decisive for insurance. The date of acceptance is both a starting point and an end point: before it, the builder is bound by an obligation to achieve a result as to completion and conformity; after it, liability arises only under the conditions and within the periods of the statutory warranties.

Snags must be listed in the acceptance minutes, precisely and descriptively. They identify the location, the nature of the defect observed and, where appropriate, the remedial work expected. A snag worded in general terms (finishing work to be redone) will be harder to enforce than a detailed one (long cracks in the north-east corner of the living room, badly pointed skirting boards on the south wall, two cracked tiles in the bathroom).

Precision determines scope. The one-year completion warranty covers the defects flagged by snags in the minutes or by later written notification. The project owner may also annex a photographic file to the minutes, sign an addendum detailing the remedial work and set a deadline for its completion. Signing an acceptance without snags amounts to a waiver of the right to rely on defects that were apparent on the day of acceptance, other than ten-year and proper-functioning defects.

Tacit acceptance is acceptance resulting from unequivocal conduct by the project owner showing an intention to accept the work, without any minutes having been signed. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has set the test: taking possession of the work and paying for it give rise to a presumption of the project owner's unequivocal intention to accept it, with or without snags (Cass. 3e civ., 18 April 2019, No. 18-13.734, published in the Bulletin).

The Court has also held that completion of the whole of the work is not a condition for taking possession of a package and for its acceptance and that payment of the entire price of the works of a package and its taking of possession by the project owner give rise to a presumption of tacit acceptance (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 30 January 2019, No. 18-10.197, published in the Bulletin). The presumption is rebuttable: it can be overturned by proof of a contrary intention, for example if the project owner has consistently disputed the quality of the works and made express reservations.

Yes, where the work is not in a condition to be accepted. The project owner may refuse acceptance if the works are unfinished, if major defects make the work unfit for its intended purpose, or if the safety of the occupants is compromised. The refusal must be objective, reasoned and proportionate to the defects observed. An abusive refusal, that is, one based on minor or non-existent defects, exposes the project owner to a claim for judicial acceptance and to damages.

In practice, if the refusal persists, the builder may apply to the court for judicial acceptance. The judge then pronounces acceptance, possibly with snags, by reference to the technical condition of the work and the conclusions of an expert. For the project owner, the most prudent course with a partly defective work is often acceptance with precise snags rather than an outright refusal.

Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code does not set a single mandatory time limit. The text provides that the time needed to carry out the remedial work is fixed by mutual agreement between the project owner and the contractor concerned (our translation). In practice, contracts generally provide for a period for clearing snags within the weeks or months following acceptance, sometimes 30 to 90 days depending on the nature of the works.

The issue lies in the sanction. The text continues: failing such agreement or if the work is not carried out within the set period, the work may, after a formal notice that has remained unsuccessful, be carried out at the cost and risk of the defaulting contractor (our translation). The one-year completion warranty runs for one year from acceptance and requires the contractor to remedy the defects noted as snags or notified in writing within that year. Actual clearing must be recorded by agreement or, failing that, by the court.

Full payment of the works does not, on its own, amount to acceptance. But combined with taking possession, it gives rise to a presumption of the project owner's unequivocal intention to accept the work. The Third Civil Chamber held on 18 April 2019 that taking possession of the work and paying for the works give rise to a presumption of that intention. This statutory presumption requires the judge to apply it, absent proof to the contrary.

Where taking possession and payment are spread over time, the date adopted for tacit acceptance is that of the last, latest event. The Third Civil Chamber confirmed this rule on 12 November 2020 in a case where possession was taken in September 2005 and full payment was made on 26 May 2006: the date of tacit acceptance was set at 26 May 2006.

Taking possession alone is generally not enough to establish acceptance. A body of evidence showing the project owner's unequivocal intention is required: taking possession, payment, absence of express snags, possibly upkeep of the premises or use in line with the intended purpose. In an older decision, the Third Civil Chamber held that taking possession accompanied by the most express reservations about known defects does not amount to tacit acceptance (Cass. 3e civ., 17 June 1998, No. 96-13.048).

The presumption established by case law since 2019, however, reverses the burden of proof: where taking possession is combined with full payment, a project owner who disputes acceptance must prove a contrary intention (for example through regular letters of protest, bailiff's reports on the defects, or referral to a private expert). To avoid the debate, it is better to sign precise minutes, whether with or without snags.

All apparent defects must be flagged in the minutes in the form of snags. Acceptance without snags extinguishes the defects that were apparent on the day of acceptance: they can no longer be invoked under the builder's contractual liability, save in the particular case of fraudulent misrepresentation (dol). Typically concerned are visible cracks, finishing defects, deviations from the plans or the specifications of the contract, and aesthetic imperfections.

Whether a defect is apparent or latent is assessed by reference to a normally diligent project owner, at the precise time of acceptance. Damage is apparent if not only its visible manifestation but also its causes and consequences were foreseeable. Latent defects, or those not yet revealed at acceptance, remain covered by the ten-year liability or the proper-functioning warranty depending on their nature. For more on classification, see our page on construction defects.

Yes, where the architect has been given a site supervision brief. The architect, as project manager for the execution of the works, assists the project owner at the acceptance meeting, advises on the snags to be raised and signs the minutes in an assisting capacity. The signature engages the architect's professional duty of advice: an architect who fails to flag an apparent defect at the time of acceptance may be held liable jointly and severally (in solidum) with the contractor.

The architect's absence from the acceptance meeting is itself a problem. A project owner who pronounces acceptance without the project manager risks missing technical defects that only a professional can identify. If the assistance brief is provided for in the contract, an architect absent without legitimate reason may incur liability. The presence of all the parties at the minutes is a good practice that proves decisive in later litigation.

Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code lays down the procedure: failing such agreement or if the work is not carried out within the set period, the work may, after a formal notice that has remained unsuccessful, be carried out at the cost and risk of the defaulting contractor (our translation). The project owner must therefore first serve a written formal notice, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, setting a reasonable period for the remedial work.

If the formal notice has no effect, the project owner may have the work carried out by another contractor, at the cost and risk of the defaulting contractor. Prudence calls for having the non-performance recorded by a bailiff before the second contractor steps in, and for keeping quotes, invoices and photographs from before and after the remedial work. The project owner may then apply to the court for reimbursement of the sums incurred, in addition, where applicable, to compensation for loss of enjoyment and costs. Retention money, if provided for, may be drawn on.

Yes. The one-year completion warranty runs for one year from acceptance and, under Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code, covers the defects flagged by means of snags noted in the acceptance minutes, or by written notification for those revealed after acceptance (our translation). The warranty rests on the contractor who carried out the works concerned.

This warranty is distinct from the ten-year liability. It covers all defects, even minor ones, flagged during the year following acceptance. Ten-year liability covers only defects that compromise the solidity of the work or make it unfit for its intended purpose. The two warranties can overlap: the same defect, flagged within the year, may fall under both the completion warranty and ten-year liability if it is serious enough. The clearing of snags must be recorded, by agreement or by the court.

Article 1792-4-1 of the Civil Code provides that any person whose liability may be engaged under Articles 1792 to 1792-4 is discharged from the liabilities and warranties weighing on them, under Articles 1792 to 1792-2, after ten years from acceptance of the works (our translation). The starting point is the date of acceptance, express or tacit.

The stakes are decisive. A defect revealed 9 years and 11 months after acceptance remains covered by ten-year liability; a defect revealed 10 years and one month after acceptance is time-barred. The project owner must anticipate the limitation period: notify the claim to the building-damage insurer where applicable, have the defects recorded by a bailiff, and serve an urgent application for an expert assessment under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interrupt the period. To go further, see our page on ten-year builder's liability.

Yes, and it is even recommended for complex sites or high-stakes operations. The project owner may appoint a private technical expert (architect, engineering consultancy, expert registered with a court of appeal) to assist at the acceptance meeting. The expert draws up a detailed report, identifies the apparent defects, proposes precise snags and measures their technical impact.

Their presence, separate from that of the architect who supervised the site, provides an independent analysis that can be relied on against the other parties. In later litigation, the report and the recommendation sheet on the snags to be raised may be put before the court and support the characterisation of the defects. The cost of a private expert, generally between €800 and €2,500 for a home acceptance, is a preventive investment that avoids disputes that are often more costly. To go further, see our page on building expert assessment.

The Paris judicial court has jurisdiction over acceptance disputes where the building is located in Paris. The rule of territorial jurisdiction rests, in real property matters, on the location of the building. For an urgent application for an expert assessment, where the measure concerns a building, Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court of the place where the building is located.

For sites in the inner suburbs, the judicial court of Bobigny, Créteil, Nanterre or Versailles may have jurisdiction depending on the municipality. The firm, based at 11 rue Margueritte 75017 Paris, regularly pleads before all of these courts and coordinates court-appointed expert assessments throughout the jurisdiction of the Paris court of appeal. For sensitive operations, anticipating territorial jurisdiction from the contract stage makes it possible to arrange, where appropriate, a valid jurisdiction clause between traders.