The lending bank is not responsible for everything

Thus, ruled the Court of Cassation, if the contract did not comply with the consumer code, which the bank should have seen, this did not make it responsible for the poor work already carried out.

The case once again concerned a private electricity production installation using photovoltaic panels. After the installation was completed, an individual obtained a loan from his banker for the amount of the invoice. But three years later, judging that the promised return had not been achieved, he took legal action to cancel the works contract and, consequently, the loan contract.

The works contract having not complied with all the formalities required of a contract signed following canvassing, he maintained that the bank should have noticed this and refused to finance the installation. In conclusion, he refused to reimburse.

This reasoning has often been accepted by case law. The obligation to reimburse, in the event of cancellation of the main work contract, can be canceled if the bank committed a fault by releasing the money upon seeing the contract not in compliance with consumer protection laws or without verifying the correctness of the contract. execution of the work, or when the work was not completed or did not comply with the contract, the Court of Cassation has often ruled.

But this time, the work was completed when the banker was contacted and the consumer declared himself satisfied. It is therefore not certain, observed the judges, that the bank can be held responsible for the default which subsequently appeared. The link, in such a case, between his fault and the damage is not certain.

In October 2020, the Court of Cassation ruled that in order to reproach the banker and try not to reimburse him, the consumer must not himself be responsible for the problem.

(Cass. CIv 1, 27.9.2023, J 22-15.575).