In France, although a legal contract for the sale of real estate does not normally arise until a contract has been signed in front of a notaire or estate agent, it remains possible for the process to be undertaken privately (sous seing privé) by buyer and seller.
In a case recently heard in the court of appeal in France sitting in Colmar, on 20th August 2015 a couple had accepted an offer to buy building land for the price of €227,000.
However, three months later the sellers informed the buyers of their intention to sell the land to another buyer.
As a result the original buyers brought an action in the courts for judicial enforcement of the sale.
The agreement between the parties had been confirmed in an exchange of mails, which stated that the sale was subject to:
A formal sale and purchase contract being signed by 31st Aug 2015;
A mortgage of €11,000 being obtained by the buyer by 31st Aug 2015;
Planning permission being obtained for a dwelling;
Boundary survey being carried out;
Final completion of the sale by 31st March 2016.
When the case was first heard in the lower court the judges considered that as the sale and purchase agreement had not been signed by the due date of 31st August 2015, the agreement was out of time. This ruling was overturned by the court of appeal.
The appeal court considered that the exchange of mails between the seller and buyer constituted an agreement, particularly with the seller having written and signed in manuscript at the end of the agreement ''bon pour vente au prix de 227 000 euros''.
Although the parties had agreed that a formal compromis de vente should be prepared, the court took the view that they did not intend to make it or the signing of the deed a condition of their consent, but a simple method of execution of the sale.
The date for signing of the formal agreement had passed, including payment of the deposit, but the court considered as this date was not accompanied by any penalty on failure to comply it could not lead to lapse of the agreement.
As a result, the only date that mattered was the date for signing of the deed of sale, which had not lapsed when the seller withdrew.
It is also apparent that the proposed purchaser had informed the seller and the notary of the steps taken with a view to obtaining financing within a reasonable time. No lack of diligence could therefore be attributed to the buyer.
In these circumstances, the seller could not consider themselves to be released from their obligations, and so committed a fault by contracting with a new buyer.
As a result the court ordered judicial enforcement of the sale, with damages also payable to the buyer.
Related Reading:
