Can a purchaser who has been the victim of fraudulent misrepresentation be compensated without seeking to have the sale set aside?
A couple purchased a flat for €710,000. After the sale, they discovered that the occupant of the neighbouring flat was behaving in a particularly disruptive manner, causing them to feel unsafe. The purchasers believed that the sellers were aware of this situation but had deliberately concealed it at the time of the sale.
Rather than seeking to have the sale set aside on the grounds of fraud, they chose to keep the property and sought compensation corresponding to the loss in value of the flat caused by this nuisance.
The Court of Appeal ruled in their favour and ordered the sellers to pay compensation amounting to 15 per cent of the purchase price, i.e. 106,500 euros. The sellers then lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation. In their view, the buyers were only entitled to compensation for the loss of the opportunity to negotiate a better price, and not to full compensation for the overvaluation of the property.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It held that the purchaser of a property who has been the victim of fraud, and who chooses not to seek the annulment of the sale, may obtain compensation for the excess price paid as a result of the fraudulent conduct. In this case, the loss corresponded to the actual depreciation in the value of the property linked to the circumstances concealed at the time of the sale.
The High Court thus upheld the discretionary assessment of the trial judges, who had estimated this depreciation at 15 per cent of the purchase price.
Key point: where a purchaser discovers after the sale that a material fact has been deliberately concealed from them, they are not obliged to seek the annulment of the contract. They may retain the property and obtain compensation corresponding to the difference between the price paid and the property’s actual value as it would have been known had there been no fraud. This decision confirms the possibility of directly compensating for an overpayment, without being limited to a mere loss of the opportunity to negotiate on better terms.
28 mai 2026, Cour de Cassation, Pourvoi n°24-20.821
History
-
Can a construction damage insurer be held liable on the basis of general contractual liability?
Published on : 24/06/2026 24 June Jun 06 2026Actualités
A group of property owners alleged that their construction damage insurer had... -
Can a purchaser who has been the victim of fraudulent misrepresentation be compensated without seeking to have the sale set aside?
Published on : 10/06/2026 10 June Jun 06 2026Actualités
A couple purchased a flat for €710,000. After the sale, they discovered that...
-
Do remedial works interrupt the ten-year limitation period?
Published on : 22/05/2026 22 May May 05 2026Actualités
A care home (EPHAD) had a residential block built, which was accepted in 2008... -
The admission of a non-judicial expert opinion supported by accompanying documents not provided by the expert himself
Published on : 06/05/2026 06 May May 05 2026Actualités
An insurer, having been subrogated to the rights of its insured after paying... -
War does not always make execution impossible. Sometimes, it simply makes it ruinous
Published on : 05/05/2026 05 May May 05 2026Actualités
War does not always make execution impossible. Sometimes, it simply makes... -
Ten-year warranty and photovoltaic panels: exclusion of equipment used exclusively for professional purposes in accordance with Article 1792-7 of the French Civil Code
Published on : 08/04/2026 08 April Apr 04 2026Actualités
The owner of agricultural buildings commissioned a contractor to install a so...