VEFA delay lawyer
A VEFA lawyer, Mr. Zakine designed the company Vefa-Retard.com to help you find out if you were entitled to compensation for delay.
Feel free to visit the website vefa-retard.com or directly on the late payment calculator : vefa-retard/questionnaire
The sale of a building to be constructed: the obligation to contractually provide for a delivery period.
The provisions of the Civil Code stipulate that the seller who builds the building has the right toobligation to specify a delivery period in the contract.
The operators of the buildings to be constructed express the delivery period in terms of a specific month or quarter without committing to a specific date.
The planned deadline may be delayed by the effect of force majeure, bad weather, etc., duly noted and established, which entails delays in the construction.
While the Court of Cassation tends to uphold them, as long as the cases are perfectly justified by the developer and the project manager, the Court of Cassation does not consider that the cases are not justified, the time extension clause will not always allow the developer to avoid liability for late delivery.
Indeed, the judges verify that the reason for the increase invoked by the seller-developer is indeed legitimate. It is not enough for it to be mentioned in the additional time clause. It must also justify the delay both in principle and in terms of its quantum.
The time extension clause will not always allow the promoter to avoid liability for late delivery.
A VEFA problem?
Maitre Zakine, lawyer, Doctor of Law is one of the VEFA.
Do not hesitate to contact her to discuss it.
Master Zakine has set up a form to help you calculate your compensation for late payment. vefa-retard.com
Case law example illustrating the judge's objective assessment of the facts: despite the inclusion in the VEFA contract of a clause referring to the failure of a company as a legitimate cause for delay, the opening of a procedure a company working on the site can only justify a delay equivalent to the time required to replace them. In other words, the failure of the project owner to replace the defaulting builder cannot be covered by the time extension clause (Cass. 3e civ. 21 Nov. 2019, no.o 18-22.797).
In other words, the contract, which has become the law of the parties, is not sufficient to exempt the promoter from liability for late delivery. The performance in good faith of contractual obligations is carefully analysed by a judge who also ensures that the interests of consumers are protected.
