Fraud (dol) in French contract law: what it is and what it unwinds
Dol (fraud) is the most invoked of the French defects of consent, and the disputes arise most often exactly where foreign businesses operate: sales of companies and transfers of shares, followed closely by property deals. It is the act of a contracting party who obtains the other's consent by manoeuvres or lies, or who intentionally conceals information it knows to be decisive for the other side (C. civ. Art. 1137). Where dol is established, the contract can be annulled at the victim's option, everything paid comes back, and damages can be added or claimed instead.
This article sets out the constitutive elements, the doctrine of fraudulent silence (réticence dolosive), the conditions a claimant must prove, the defences the courts accept, and the available sanctions, from retroactive nullity to a negotiated-in-court price reduction. Throughout, the reference points are the decisions French courts apply today, including the most recent case law on deceived professionals.
Deceived into a French contract, or accused of deceit?
Free · 30 seconds
Deceived into a French contract, or accused of deceit?
Handled by Petroff Avocats, French registered lawyers · Paris Bar (Toque #C2396)
The elements of dol: manoeuvres, lies and the intention to deceive
Dol takes two statutory forms. The first is active: obtaining the other party's consent through manoeuvres or lies (C. civ. Art. 1137). The case law's examples run from schemes staged to capture consent to plain lies (Cass. 1e civ., 14 avr. 2010, n° 08-20.386; Cass. 3e civ., 11 févr. 2014, n° 12-29.986), and include conduct as simple as negotiating a finance lease with a purchase option, as the parties' established practice provided, then deleting the option at signature (Cass. com., 13 avr. 2022, n° 20-18.973). The second form is passive, the fraudulent silence examined in the next section.
What both forms share is the requirement of an intention to deceive: the manoeuvres, lies or silence must have been deployed to induce the other party's error (Cass. com., 4 nov. 2014, n° 13-24.665; Cass. com., 21 avr. 2022, n° 20-12.846), and a judge cannot dismiss a dol claim without examining whether the silent party intended to deceive (Cass. com., 27 janv. 2021, n° 18-16.418). That requirement also sets the limits of the concept. The following do not constitute dol:
- negligence, even serious negligence, and even where it caused an error (Cass. com., 10 mars 1981);
- misleading the other party while being mistaken oneself;
- mere attempts at influence (Cass. com., 2 juin 1981, n° 79-13.931);
- inserting a clause in minute print without precaution, which the courts have declined to treat as fraud (Cass. com., 5 mars 1974);
- exercising pressure on a debtor (Cass. 1e civ., 9 mars 2022, n° 20-18.532);
- commercial exaggeration, which the courts distinguish from the actionable lie (Cass. com., 13 déc. 1994, n° 92-20.806; Cass. 3e civ., 7 avr. 2016, n° 14-24.164).
Statements held too imprecise to be lies include the use of the term "Hi-Fi", which no French standard defines (Cass. civ., 3 oct. 1979), the assertion that an application was "in the course of acceptance" (Cass. com., 15 juin 1981), and the promise of a self-financing installation that proved unrealisable (CA Orléans, 29 août 2019, n° 18/02982).
These practices can accompany the conclusion of any contract, but they are especially frequent in transfers of shares (cessions de droits sociaux) and sales of businesses, which is where the dol case law is made.
The heaviest dol litigation concerns transfers of shares and sales of property. Buyers of French companies should treat the doctrine as their principal post-closing remedy, and sellers as their principal post-closing exposure.
Fraudulent silence: the réticence dolosive
Dol is also constituted by one party's intentional concealment of information it knows to be decisive for the other (C. civ. Art. 1137). The courts sanctioned this silence for decades before its codification, under the name réticence dolosive (fraudulent silence). The silence must be unquestionably intentional where nullity is sought (Cass. com., 10 févr. 2015, n° 13-25.008; Cass. com., 17 févr. 2021, n° 19-16.673), and it must have misled a party that lacked the means of accessing the indispensable information by itself (Cass. com., 8 nov. 2016, n° 14-29.884). Where the complainant in fact knew the situation, or held the documents revealing it, the claim fails.
The silences the courts have sanctioned correspond to the standard subjects of due diligence. Concealment has been held fraudulent where a party kept silent:
- on the irregular administrative status of an asset (Cass. com., 22 févr. 1994);
- on a right encumbering the asset: a mortgage (Cass. 3e civ., 23 janv. 1974, n° 72-14.299), a pre-emption agreement (Cass. civ., 7 oct. 1980), or town-planning easements;
- on the real condition of the asset (Cass. com., 27 juin 1995; Cass. civ., 20 déc. 1995);
- on the existence of litigation affecting a right or a property (Cass. com., 22 juin 1981);
- in a capital raise, on a past criminal conviction of a director, whose revelation would have driven the investor away (Cass. com., 7 févr. 2012, n° 11-10.487).
The concealment analysis is contextual, not mechanical: a commune that resold land under condition of planning permission without revealing its request to amend the zoning plan committed no réticence (fraudulent silence), because the initial seller had itself suggested the amendment and the decision remained hypothetical. And the claim fails every time the complainant in fact knew the situation it complains of (Cass. com., 16 janv. 1996; Cass. com., 30 janv. 1996), or held the information: no réticence was found against a claimant who had the relevant information at its disposal (Cass. com., 13 déc. 2016, n° 15-18.002).
A point of procedure matters to litigants who only want money. Where nullity is sought, the intentional character of the silence must be beyond question. Where damages alone are claimed, the commercial chamber requires the same proof of intent (Cass. com., 7 juin 2011, n° 10-13.622), while the first civil chamber has upheld awards without an express finding of intention (Cass. 1e civ., 28 mai 2008, n° 07-13.487), a course the administrative courts have also taken (CE, 23 nov. 2007, n° 268918): the choice of route, and of the arguments each chamber expects, is part of the strategy.
The value exception
One silence is expressly permitted: a party commits no réticence by not revealing to the other its estimate of the value of the prestation (C. civ. Art. 1137). The provision codifies, and extends to both parties, the line the courts drew for the buyer who knowingly acquired at a fraction of true value without telling the seller (Cass. 1e civ., 3 mai 2000, n° 98-11.381; Cass. 3e civ., 17 janv. 2007, n° 06-10.442). The exception has limits of its own: a professional property buyer who kept silent about an agent's deliberate, substantial undervaluation and then offered the seller a higher price to make him believe he was doing well committed dol (Cass. 3e civ., 5 déc. 2006).
What the victim must prove, and against whom
Three conditions complete the claim. First, the deceit must have provoked an error, and by statute an error resulting from dol is always excusable (C. civ. Art. 1139): the victim's own negligence does not save the deceiver (Cass. com., 18 sept. 2024, n° 23-10.183), and neither does the victim's professional status, even where the professional was supposed to know the applicable regulation itself (Cass. com., 1 oct. 2025, n° 24-13.488). Any error suffices. The rule predates the reform: the courts already annulled for dol whatever the circumstances of the error, including where it did not bear on the substance of the thing, where it bore only on value (Cass. com., 17 juin 2008, n° 07-15.398), and where a professional victim should have detected it itself (Cass. com., 8 mars 2016, n° 14-23.135); it sufficed that the victim was in fact misled.
Second, the dol must have been decisive for the victim's consent (C. civ. Arts. 1130 and 1137). This is where sellers defend: a party cannot invoke deceit about an element the contract itself excluded as determining (Cass. 3e civ., 21 mars 2001, n° 99-14.399), and courts have found the dol non-determining where the victim would have contracted on the same terms in any event (Cass. com., 14 mai 1979, n° 78-11.063). A buyer who declared it knew its acquisition, a clinic, perfectly, and who held numerous documents showing its real profitability, lost on the same ground (CA Paris, 8 janv. 2015, n° 14/0917). Well-drafted knowledge and non-reliance clauses are given real effect in France.
Third, the dol must emanate from the co-contracting party, from its representative (whether appointed by law, by contract or by the court), from its employee, from the person who guaranteed its undertaking (porte-fort, promise of another's act) or its business manager, or from a third party acting in collusion (C. civ. Arts. 1137 and 1138; Cass. com., 13 juin 1995, n° 93-17.409). The deceit of an unconnected third party leaves the contract standing, unless the error it provoked bears on an essential quality of the prestation, the performance owed (Cass. com., 19 avr. 2023, n° 22-11.097). Donations are the exception: they are annulled for dol whoever its author, and the beneficiary of a shared donation may invoke the dol of the donor and of a co-beneficiary alike (Cass. 1e civ., 17 oct. 2019, n° 18-22.769). The victim carries the burden of proof, by any means (Cass. 3e civ., 17 nov. 2004), and must prove the deceiver's will to mislead in order to obtain consent (Cass. 3e civ., 26 oct. 2022, n° 21-19.898). Hindsight is not proof: the fact that, after conclusion, a business seller refused the buyer access to its accounting books did not establish a dol at formation (Cass. com., 15 nov. 1977).
Do you have a dol (fraud) case?
Free · 30 seconds
Do you have a dol (fraud) case?
Handled by Petroff Avocats, French registered lawyers · Paris Bar (Toque #C2396)
Sanctions: nullity, restitution, damages, and the choice between them
The nullity dol produces is relative: only the victim may invoke it (C. civ. Art. 1131; Cass. 3e civ., 18 oct. 2005). It is available even for a merely incidental dol, one that did not cause the victim to contract but caused it to accept disadvantageous terms (C. civ. Art. 1130). The action prescribes five years from the day the dol was discovered (C. civ. Art. 1144): the period is the ordinary limitation period of French civil law, and only its starting point is special. Annulment is retroactive: the victim recovers the entirety of the sums paid (Cass. com., 19 mai 1998), and once dol is constituted the victim may set the vitiated contract's nullity against a third party relying on it even before a court has pronounced it: the insurer of a vehicle whose purchase had been vitiated by dol could not rely on the insurance contract concluded as an accessory to that purchase, the nullity of the sale erasing all of that contract's consequences (Cass. civ., 21 févr. 1995). What dol does not open is termination for breach, whether résolution or résiliation (Cass. com., 3 mars 1975): the remedy attacks the formation of the contract, not its performance.
Damages run alongside or instead. The victim who annuls may add damages for any remaining loss, assessed under the ordinary rules of civil liability. The victim who prefers to keep the contract may claim damages alone, in principle on proof of the intention to deceive (Cass. com., 11 mai 2017, n° 15-25.301), and those damages can take the practical form of a price reduction (Cass. 3e civ., 6 juin 2012, n° 11-15.973). The measure is constrained: a victim who renounces annulment recovers the lost chance of contracting on better terms, not the return it would have made on a different investment (Cass. com., 5 juin 2019, n° 16-10.391), and no chance was lost where the price was not shown to be excessive when agreed (Cass. com., 24 sept. 2013, n° 12-19.640). A victim may still claim damages after abandoning the nullity action (Cass. com., 18 oct. 1994) or after failing in it (Cass. 3e civ., 11 janv. 2012, n° 10-23.141), and even a victim finally refused all compensation may claim afresh where its prejudice has since become actual and certain (Cass. com., 21 juin 2016, n° 14-29.874). Finally, the same facts can also constitute the criminal offence of escroquerie (criminal fraud), with its own penalties.
| Route | What you get | Key constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Nullity | Retroactive annulment and full restitution of sums paid, plus damages for remaining loss | Victim only; five years from discovery; intent must be unquestionable |
| Damages only | Compensation while keeping the contract, possibly as a price reduction | Measured by the lost chance of better terms, not by a hypothetical alternative deal |
| Nullity opposed defensively | The vitiated contract cannot be relied on against you by third parties | Dol must be constituted, even if not yet judicially pronounced |
| Criminal complaint | Escroquerie penalties where the deceit is criminally organised | Separate track with its own standard of proof |
Defending a dol claim: the arguments French courts accept
The conditions above are also the accused party's checklist. Dol must be proved by the party alleging it, by any means, and the case law shows which defences succeed:
- No intention to deceive. The claimant must prove a will to mislead in order to obtain consent (Cass. 3e civ., 26 oct. 2022, n° 21-19.898); negligence, one's own mistake, influence and commercial exaggeration all fall short.
- The claimant knew, or could have known. Réticence (fraudulent silence) fails against a party who knew the situation (Cass. com., 16 janv. 1996; Cass. com., 30 janv. 1996), held the information (Cass. com., 13 déc. 2016, n° 15-18.002), or had the means of accessing it itself (Cass. com., 8 nov. 2016, n° 14-29.884).
- The fact was not determining. A dol that did not determine consent grounds nothing (Cass. com., 14 mai 1979, n° 78-11.063), and a contract clause excluding the element as determining bars the claim on that element (Cass. 3e civ., 21 mars 2001, n° 99-14.399).
- The silence concerned value. Neither party owes the other its estimate of the value of the prestation, the performance owed (C. civ. Art. 1137).
- The proof rests on hindsight. Conduct after conclusion, such as refusing access to accounting books, does not establish a deceit at formation (Cass. com., 15 nov. 1977).
Where none of these defences holds and the intention to deceive cannot be established either, the claimant's fallback claims are mistake (erreur) and breach of the pre-contractual duty of information, each with its own conditions and remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Dol is obtaining a party's consent by manoeuvres or lies, or intentionally concealing information known to be decisive for that party. It is a defect of consent: where established, the contract can be annulled at the victim's option and damages can be awarded. Even an incidental dol, one that only led the victim to accept worse terms, grounds nullity.
It can be. Intentionally concealing information you know to be decisive for the other party is réticence dolosive, provided the other party could not access the information itself. The one protected silence concerns your estimate of the value of the prestation (the performance owed), which you need not reveal, a rule the Civil Code extends to both parties.
No. An error resulting from dol is always excusable by statute, and the courts apply that rule even to negligent victims and to professionals who should have known the applicable rules themselves. The deceiver cannot rely on the victim's carelessness: the Cour de cassation has confirmed the rule for a professional victim presumed to know the regulation applicable to its own activities.
Five years from the day the dol was discovered, not from signature. Where the concealment is discovered late, notably in company acquisitions, the period can therefore start years after closing. The starting point is a question of fact, and a claimant should document precisely when and how the deceit came to light.
Yes. The victim may keep the contract and sue for damages alone, which courts have granted in the form of a price reduction. The measure is then the lost chance of contracting on better terms, not the return of a hypothetical alternative investment, and the intention to deceive must in principle still be proved.
Only if the third party acted in collusion with your co-contractor, or was its representative, employee or business manager. An unconnected third party's deceit leaves the contract standing, unless the error it provoked bears on an essential quality of the prestation. Donations are treated differently: they are annulled for dol whoever its author.
Dol does not open an action in termination, whether résolution or résiliation: it attacks the formation of the contract, not its performance. The routes it opens are relative nullity with full restitution, and damages, which may be claimed together with nullity or on their own.
By disclosure and by drafting. Decisive information should be disclosed in a documented way, and the contract should record what the buyer examined and declared to know, since the courts have rejected dol claims where the complainant had declared full knowledge and held the revealing documents. No clause, however, will cover an intentional concealment: the value-estimate silence is the only silence the Civil Code itself protects.
The business lawyers of Petroff Avocats act for foreign companies on both sides of dol disputes, in share-deal and property litigation and in the drafting that prevents it: disclosure records, knowledge clauses and warranty architecture. Send us the facts and one of our lawyers will come back to you in English within one business day.
Talk to a French business lawyerThis article is for general information only and reflects French law as published at the date shown above. It does not constitute legal advice. Always seek qualified advice before acting.
- C. civ. Art. 1130Defects of consent must have been decisive; incidental dol also grounds nullityLégifrance
- C. civ. Art. 1131The nullity produced by defects of consent is relative: only the victim may invoke itLégifrance
- C. civ. Art. 1137Defines dol, including intentional concealment; the estimate of value need not be revealedLégifrance
- C. civ. Art. 1138Dol of representatives, employees, business managers and colluding third parties counts as the party's ownLégifrance
- C. civ. Art. 1139An error resulting from dol is always excusable and grounds nullity even where it bears on valueLégifrance
- C. civ. Art. 1144For dol, the five-year nullity period runs from the day the dol was discoveredLégifrance
- Cass. civ., 3 oct. 1979Use of the term Hi-Fi, defined by no French standard, was not a lieCour de cassation
- Cass. civ., 7 oct. 1980Silence on a pre-emption agreement encumbering the asset was fraudulentCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 10 mars 1981Serious negligence does not constitute dolCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 15 juin 1981Declaring that an application was in the course of acceptance was not a lieCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 22 juin 1981Silence on litigation affecting a right or property was fraudulentCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 18 oct. 1994Damages remain available after the victim desists from the nullity actionCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 27 juin 1995Silence on the real condition of the asset sold was fraudulentCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 30 janv. 1996Réticence is excluded where the complainant knew the situation complained ofCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 3 mars 1975Dol opens nullity, not an action in résolution or résiliationCour de cassation
- Cass. 1e civ., 14 avr. 2010, n° 08-20.386Lies inducing conclusion of the contract constitute dolCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 11 févr. 2014, n° 12-29.986Confirms that lies inducing consent constitute dolCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 7 avr. 2016, n° 14-24.164Distinguishes the lie from mere advertising exaggeration; any error induced by dol sufficesCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 13 déc. 2016, n° 15-18.002No réticence against a claimant who had the relevant information at its disposalCour de cassation
- Cass. 1e civ., 17 oct. 2019, n° 18-22.769The beneficiary of a shared donation may invoke the dol of the donor and of a co-beneficiaryCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 5 mars 1974A clause in minute print without precaution was not treated as fraudCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 23 janv. 1974, n° 72-14.299Silence on a mortgage encumbering the asset sold was a fraudulent concealmentCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 15 nov. 1977Post-conclusion refusal of access to accounting books did not prove a dol at formationCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 14 mai 1979, n° 78-11.063A dol that was not determining of consent does not ground nullityCour de cassation
- CA Paris, 8 janv. 2015, n° 14/0917No dol where the buyer declared full knowledge of the acquisition and held the documents showing its profitabilityCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 2 juin 1981, n° 79-13.931Attempts to exercise influence do not constitute dolCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 13 déc. 1994, n° 92-20.806Distinguishes the actionable lie from mere advertising exaggerationCour de cassation
- Cass. civ., 21 févr. 1995Constituted dol can be opposed to a third party relying on the contract even before annulment is pronouncedCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 19 mai 1998Annulment for dol entitles the victim to restitution of all sums paidCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 22 févr. 1994Silence on the irregular administrative status of the asset sold was dolosiveCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 13 juin 1995, n° 93-17.409Dol of a colluding third party counts against the contracting partyCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 16 janv. 1996No réticence where the complainant in fact knew the situation complained ofCour de cassation
- Cass. 1e civ., 3 mai 2000, n° 98-11.381The buyer owes the seller no disclosure of the value of the thing boughtCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 21 mars 2001, n° 99-14.399A party cannot invoke deceit on an element the contract excluded as determining of its consentCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 5 déc. 2006A professional buyer's silence on a deliberate substantial undervaluation constituted dolCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 17 janv. 2007, n° 06-10.442Confirms the absence of a duty to disclose one's estimate of valueCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 17 nov. 2004Dol may be proved by any meansCour de cassation
- Cass. 1e civ., 28 mai 2008, n° 07-13.487The first civil chamber has upheld damages for dol without an express finding of intentionCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 17 juin 2008, n° 07-15.398An error bearing on value grounds annulment where it results from dolCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 7 juin 2011, n° 10-13.622The commercial chamber requires proof of intent even for damages-only dol claimsCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 7 févr. 2012, n° 11-10.487Silence on a director's past conviction in a fundraising was a fraudulent concealmentCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 11 janv. 2012, n° 10-23.141Damages may be claimed even after failing in the nullity actionCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 6 juin 2012, n° 11-15.973Damages for dol may take the form of a price reductionCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 24 sept. 2013, n° 12-19.640No lost chance where the price was not shown excessive when agreedCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 4 nov. 2014, n° 13-24.665Manoeuvres must have been accomplished to induce the co-contractor's errorCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 10 févr. 2015, n° 13-25.008The silence founding nullity must be unquestionably intentionalCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 8 nov. 2016, n° 14-29.884Réticence requires a victim without the means to access the indispensable information itselfCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 11 mai 2017, n° 15-25.301Damages on the basis of dol in principle require proof of the intention to deceiveCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 5 juin 2019, n° 16-10.391The victim who keeps the contract recovers the lost chance of better terms, not an alternative investment's returnCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 27 janv. 2021, n° 18-16.418The judge must examine whether the silent party intended to deceive before dismissing dolCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 17 févr. 2021, n° 19-16.673Confirms the requirement of unquestionably intentional silence for nullityCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 13 avr. 2022, n° 20-18.973Deleting at signature an option negotiated per established practice was a dolCour de cassation
- Cass. 3e civ., 26 oct. 2022, n° 21-19.898Proof of dol requires proof of the will to mislead in order to obtain consentCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 19 avr. 2023, n° 22-11.097Third-party dol is ineffective unless the provoked error bears on an essential quality of the prestationCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 8 mars 2016, n° 14-23.135A professional victim's error resulting from dol grounds annulment although it should have detected itCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 21 juin 2016, n° 14-29.874A fresh damages claim is open where the prejudice has since become actual and certainCour de cassation
- CA Orléans, 29 août 2019, n° 18/02982The unrealisable promise of self-financing was not held a lieCour de cassation
- Cass. 1e civ., 9 mars 2022, n° 20-18.532Exercising pressure on a debtor does not constitute dolCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 21 avr. 2022, n° 20-12.846Confirms the requirement that deceptive acts aim at inducing errorCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 18 sept. 2024, n° 23-10.183The victim's negligence does not make an error resulting from dol inexcusableCour de cassation
- Cass. com., 1 oct. 2025, n° 24-13.488A professional's error resulting from dol remains excusable despite its presumed regulatory knowledgeCour de cassation
Commercial Contracts
Fraud (Dol) in French
Dol (fraud) is the most invoked defect of consent in French law, and it surfaces most often in share sales and property deals.
Ask a French LawyerKey Legal References
Defects of consent must have been decisive; incidental dol also grounds nullity
The nullity produced by defects of consent is relative: only the victim may invoke it
Defines dol, including intentional concealment; the estimate of value need not be revealed
Dol of representatives, employees, business managers and colluding third parties counts as the party's own
An error resulting from dol is always excusable and grounds nullity even where it bears on value
For dol, the five-year nullity period runs from the day the dol was discovered
Use of the term Hi-Fi, defined by no French standard, was not a lie
Silence on a pre-emption agreement encumbering the asset was fraudulent
Serious negligence does not constitute dol
Declaring that an application was in the course of acceptance was not a lie
Silence on litigation affecting a right or property was fraudulent
Damages remain available after the victim desists from the nullity action
Silence on the real condition of the asset sold was fraudulent
Réticence is excluded where the complainant knew the situation complained of
Dol opens nullity, not an action in résolution or résiliation
Lies inducing conclusion of the contract constitute dol
Confirms that lies inducing consent constitute dol
Distinguishes the lie from mere advertising exaggeration; any error induced by dol suffices
No réticence against a claimant who had the relevant information at its disposal
The beneficiary of a shared donation may invoke the dol of the donor and of a co-beneficiary
A clause in minute print without precaution was not treated as fraud
Silence on a mortgage encumbering the asset sold was a fraudulent concealment
Post-conclusion refusal of access to accounting books did not prove a dol at formation
A dol that was not determining of consent does not ground nullity
No dol where the buyer declared full knowledge of the acquisition and held the documents showing its profitability
Attempts to exercise influence do not constitute dol
Distinguishes the actionable lie from mere advertising exaggeration
Constituted dol can be opposed to a third party relying on the contract even before annulment is pronounced
Annulment for dol entitles the victim to restitution of all sums paid
Silence on the irregular administrative status of the asset sold was dolosive
Dol of a colluding third party counts against the contracting party
No réticence where the complainant in fact knew the situation complained of
The buyer owes the seller no disclosure of the value of the thing bought
A party cannot invoke deceit on an element the contract excluded as determining of its consent
A professional buyer's silence on a deliberate substantial undervaluation constituted dol
Confirms the absence of a duty to disclose one's estimate of value
Dol may be proved by any means
The first civil chamber has upheld damages for dol without an express finding of intention
An error bearing on value grounds annulment where it results from dol
The commercial chamber requires proof of intent even for damages-only dol claims
Silence on a director's past conviction in a fundraising was a fraudulent concealment
Damages may be claimed even after failing in the nullity action
Damages for dol may take the form of a price reduction
No lost chance where the price was not shown excessive when agreed
Manoeuvres must have been accomplished to induce the co-contractor's error
The silence founding nullity must be unquestionably intentional
Réticence requires a victim without the means to access the indispensable information itself
Damages on the basis of dol in principle require proof of the intention to deceive
The victim who keeps the contract recovers the lost chance of better terms, not an alternative investment's return
The judge must examine whether the silent party intended to deceive before dismissing dol
Confirms the requirement of unquestionably intentional silence for nullity
Deleting at signature an option negotiated per established practice was a dol
Proof of dol requires proof of the will to mislead in order to obtain consent
Third-party dol is ineffective unless the provoked error bears on an essential quality of the prestation
A professional victim's error resulting from dol grounds annulment although it should have detected it
A fresh damages claim is open where the prejudice has since become actual and certain
The unrealisable promise of self-financing was not held a lie
Exercising pressure on a debtor does not constitute dol
Confirms the requirement that deceptive acts aim at inducing error
The victim's negligence does not make an error resulting from dol inexcusable
A professional's error resulting from dol remains excusable despite its presumed regulatory knowledge
