A seller's duty to provide information and advice does not apply to a professional buyer whose competence enables it to assess the technical characteristics of the equipment. The commercial chamber confirms this limit and rejects any criterion based on comparing the respective fields of expertise of the seller and the buyer. What matters is solely the buyer's actual ability to gauge the technical implications of the purchase it is contemplating.
The essentials
- A professional seller must in principle inform and advise its client as to whether the equipment is suited to the use for which it is intended; as regards a professional buyer, that duty exists only where the buyer's competence does not give it the means to assess the exact scope of the technical characteristics of the equipment.
- A difference in field of expertise between the seller and the buyer does not revive the duty: the criterion is the buyer's competence alone.
- How long the business has been operating and prior ownership of comparable equipment may suffice to establish that competence, which the lower court judges assess in their unfettered discretion.
- An experienced professional buyer who complains that the seller failed to provide information on the use of the equipment risks having its claim for compensation dismissed.
- A buyer who wants an undertaking from the seller that the equipment is fit for a given use must have it set out in the contract.
Why the seller's duty to provide information was rejected
The duty to provide information was rejected because the buyer had, through its experience, the means to assess the technical characteristics of the machine. The commercial chamber dismisses the appeal (Com., 8 July 2026, No. 25-11.256): the seller owes information and advice on the suitability of the equipment only where the professional buyer lacks the competence to assess this for itself.
In January 2014, a company operating a quarry purchased a new tracked mechanical excavator from a selling company. Relying on numerous malfunctions of the machine, the buyer issued a writ of summons (assignation) against the seller and a second company seeking rescission (résolution) of the sale and damages. It had been operating a quarry for fourteen years and already owned a hydraulic excavator. The court of appeal (CA Basse Terre, 5 December 2024, No. 23/00420) dismissed its claims.
Before the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court), the buyer argued that a professional seller is released from its duty to provide information and advice only where the buyer operates in the same field of expertise as the seller. It relied on Articles 1134, 1135 and 1602 of the French Civil Code, in their version applicable before 1 October 2016. The commercial chamber rejects that reading and states the applicable rule as follows (free translation):
The seller's duty to provide information and advice to its client as to whether the equipment sold is suited to the use for which it is intended exists as regards the professional buyer only to the extent that the latter's competence does not give it the means to assess the exact scope of the technical characteristics of the equipment in question.
The six other limbs of the ground of appeal did not give rise to a specifically reasoned decision, pursuant to Article 1014, paragraph 2, of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
What the ruling changes for a professional buyer
A seasoned professional buyer cannot rely on the seller's duty to provide advice to make good an unsuitable choice of equipment. Once its experience enables it to gauge the implications of the machine's technical characteristics, the seller has nothing to explain to it about the use for which that equipment is intended. The buyer therefore cannot obtain compensation on that basis, even if the equipment turns out to be disappointing in use.
The buyer's competence is assessed in concrete terms, on the basis of objective features of its business. Here, two features were enough: the length of time the quarry had been operated and prior ownership of a machine of the same kind. A long-established professional, already equipped with comparable equipment, therefore starts at a serious disadvantage if it bases its claim on a lack of information. Conversely, a company approaching a type of equipment that is new to it retains room for argument.
The scope of the decision remains confined to the seller's duty to provide information and advice on whether the equipment is suited to its use. The decision says nothing about the other bases on which the buyer might argue the defects affecting the machine.
The seller's field of expertise is no longer useful ground
The decision closes off the argument based on the difference in field of expertise between the seller and the buyer. The court of appeal did not have to consider whether the two companies operated in the same trade: that point is irrelevant. The reasoning focuses on the buyer's competence, assessed by the lower court judges in their unfettered discretion.
Having held, in its unfettered discretion, that [the buyer], which had been operating a quarry for fourteen years and already owned a hydraulic excavator, consequently had the competence enabling it to assess the exact scope of the technical characteristics of the equipment it was contemplating acquiring, the court of appeal, which was not required to consider whether its field of expertise differed from that of [the seller], correctly inferred that the latter owed it no duty to provide information and advice on the use for which the mechanical excavator was intended.
As the case law stands at 8 July 2026, the criterion is therefore single and functional. What remains open is a matter of assessing the facts: the threshold of competence required varies with the technical complexity of the equipment and the buyer's background. A company experienced in its own business is not necessarily competent as to every item of equipment, and the point is made out case by case before the lower court judges.
How to secure the purchase of technical equipment
The contract, not the duty to provide advice, is the proper vehicle for an undertaking by the seller as to the suitability of the equipment. A professional buyer is well advised to describe in writing the intended use, the operating constraints and the performance sought. A specification annexed to the purchase order turns an expectation into a contractual obligation.
Pre-contractual exchanges are worth keeping: technical enquiries sent to the seller, replies, data sheets and recommendations received. Those documents serve both to establish what the seller knew of the intended use and to record the limits of the buyer's competence as to the equipment concerned. On the seller's side, the same logic applies in reverse: material showing the client's experience and its previous equipment carries weight in the debate.
Checks before signing the purchase order
Before ordering technical equipment, a company would do well to set out the intended use and operating conditions in the contractual document. It should check whether the seller gives a written undertaking that the equipment is fit for that use, or merely provides a sales description. It should keep the technical exchanges predating the order. Finally, it should bear in mind that, in the event of a dispute, its length of experience in the business and its existing fleet of equipment may be relied on against it to rule out any failure to provide information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must a professional seller advise a client who is also a professional?
Not always. Under the decision of 8 July 2026 of the commercial chamber, the duty to provide information and advice on whether equipment is suited to its intended use exists as regards a professional buyer only where that buyer's competence does not give it the means to assess the exact scope of the equipment's technical characteristics. A sufficiently competent buyer therefore cannot complain of a failure to provide advice on that point.
Is a difference of trade between seller and buyer enough to trigger the duty to inform?
No. The commercial chamber rejected that argument on 8 July 2026: the lower court judges did not have to consider whether the buyer's field of expertise differed from the seller's. The sole criterion is the buyer's competence to assess the technical characteristics of the equipment. A difference in activity between the two companies does not, on its own, revive the duty to provide information and advice.
What evidence shows that a buyer was competent enough to need no advice?
Objective features drawn from its business. In the case decided on 8 July 2026, the lower court judges noted that the buyer had operated a quarry for fourteen years and already owned a hydraulic excavator. Those findings were enough to establish competence allowing it to assess the exact scope of the technical characteristics of the machine acquired. That assessment falls within the unfettered discretion of the lower court judges and is made case by case.
How can I prove the supplier knew the use I intended to make of the equipment?
Through the written exchanges before the order. A specification, an email describing operating constraints, a site visit report or a precise technical enquiry all establish what the supplier knew of the requirement. In principle, the company alleging a breach must prove it: it is therefore better to keep these documents from the negotiation stage onwards, rather than relying on purely verbal exchanges.
Should the intended use of the equipment be written into the purchase order?
Yes, that is the most effective precaution. By setting out the expected use, the performance sought and the operating constraints in the contractual document or in a technical annex, the buyer turns an expectation into an obligation of the seller. In principle, a contract binds the parties to what they have stipulated: a written undertaking on the equipment's fitness for a given use offers firmer ground than a complaint of failure to provide advice.