These clauses appear in construction contracts "with supply of plan", that is to say in construction contracts which include a design mission and a construction mission.
These clauses had been denounced by an association for the defense of private customers of manufacturers.
The judges first designated as abusive the clauses which would not set a deadline for the filing of the building permit or for the completion of the work, leaving the builder free to advance the project as he wishes.
Moreover, the clauses which make the customer responsible for the servicing procedures for the connection of public services and the direct payment for these services are also abusive.
The law requires the manufacturer to contact the dealers for these services in order to quantify these costs and to mention them in an appendix to the contract so that its customer knows precisely the costs not included in the price.
Similarly, the Court ruled, it is not up to the client but to the professional to take charge of the modifications to the project linked to a possible bringing into conformity of the work with the rules of town planning. It is the builder who develops the project, specify the judges, and its price must be final.
Other clauses encountered in contracts have been declared unfair but they are of a more technical nature. Among the general clauses, the magistrates have also ruled that the contract should mention the ten-year liability insurance, the subscription of which is compulsory for the manufacturer, in order to ensure sufficient information for the consumer on the extent of his rights.
(Cass. Civil 1, 15.6.2022, R 18-16.968).