Yacht Latent Defect Lawyer in France: Corrosion, Osmosis, Engine Hours and Your Remedies

You bought a second-hand yacht, often after a survey and a sea trial, and a few weeks or months later you discover galvanic corrosion, hull osmosis, an engine whose hours do not match the meter, or a structural defect hidden by a recent antifouling. The repair bill runs to tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of euros, and the seller, often based abroad, points to the “as is, where is” clause of the contract.

This page sets out what French law actually allows you to obtain in that situation, the time limits not to miss, and how the firm organises this type of matter, from preserving evidence to the action against the seller, the surveyor or the broker.

The risk: a real defect, but an action closed by the contract or by time

The warranty against latent defects of Articles 1641 et seq. of the French Civil Code applies to the sale of a yacht as to any sale. The buyer must prove a defect that predates the sale, was hidden, and makes the vessel unfit for its purpose or so diminishes that use that he would not have bought it, or only at a lower price. The action must be brought within two years of discovery of the defect (Article 1648), within the overall twenty-year period running from the sale.

Two obstacles recur in almost every case. The first is the exclusion of warranty clause, almost systematic in MYBA contracts and in sales between private individuals: it is valid between non-professionals, unless the seller knew of the defect, which must then be proved. The second is technical evidence: without a joint survey carried out quickly, the cause and date of the defect are disputed, and a court-ordered survey comes too late to be useful.

The legal answer: characterise before acting

The same defect may open several routes, with different conditions and results: the latent defect warranty, non-conformity if the contract described the vessel’s condition precisely, fraud if the seller concealed a prior casualty or claim, and the liability of the pre-purchase surveyor who missed a visible defect. A professional seller, a yard or a broker selling in its own name, cannot rely on the exclusion clause and is presumed to know the defects.

The choice of route determines what is obtained: rescission of the sale with return of the price, a price reduction, or damages covering repairs and downtime. It also determines the court: the applicable law and jurisdiction clause of the sale contract, or failing that the Brussels I bis Regulation for a seller established in the Union, often points to a foreign law and court, which is prepared from the first letter.

How the firm works

The firm begins by securing evidence: a bailiff’s report, a joint amicable survey or a court-ordered survey depending on urgency, and preservation of exchanges with the seller and the broker. It then analyses the sale contract, the pre-purchase survey and the vessel’s history to select the strongest characterisation, and sends the formal notice that interrupts time limits and frames the discussion.

Most cases settle on a quantified basis, supported by a survey that leaves no room for doubt. Where the seller refuses, the firm brings the action before the competent court, in France or abroad with a correspondent, and, if the vessel is still within reach, considers the conservatory arrest provided by Article L. 5114-22 of the French Transport Code to secure the claim.

Based in Paris, the firm acts in all French ports, from Le Havre to Marseille and from Nantes-Saint-Nazaire to Antibes, as well as before the Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris, and works in English with shipowners, P&I clubs and foreign counsel.

Typical cases handled

The situations below are illustrative, anonymised scenarios. They show when the firm steps in and what the work consists of.

Galvanic corrosion after a recent antifouling

Three months after buying a 22-metre yacht, the buyer discovers advanced corrosion of the through-hulls and propeller shaft, hidden by an antifouling done just before the sale. The firm has the defect recorded, establishes the seller’s knowledge through the yard’s invoices, and obtains payment of the repairs despite the exclusion clause.

Falsified engine hours

The meter showed 900 hours; the manufacturer reads 3,200 in the engine memory. The case is handled as fraud, with a claim for price reduction and damages, and the broker who relayed the information without checking is joined.

Osmosis noted by the surveyor, minimised in the report

The pre-purchase report mentioned “hull moisture to be monitored”; the osmosis required full treatment. The firm pursues the surveyor for breach of his duty to advise, alongside the action against the seller.

Hull damage and trim defect discovered late

A few months after delivery, the new owner notices that the yacht does not hold her trim and burns fuel abnormally. Hauling out reveals a deformed hull and old, undisclosed repairs in an area that had clearly suffered an impact. The pre-purchase survey, carried out afloat, could not have seen it. The contract, on the MYBA form, provided for an “as is” sale governed by English law. We first had the defects recorded by a joint survey, then established that the earlier repair was known to the seller, which moves the debate from contractual warranty to concealment. Seen that way, the exclusion clause no longer protects the seller. The matter settled with a price reduction covering the repairs and the time out of service.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the time limit to act against the seller of a yacht?

Two years from the discovery of the defect under article 1648 of the French Civil Code, which means the clock starts when the problem is found, not when the yacht changed hands. Discovery is usually dated by the first survey or by the yard’s diagnosis, so those documents are kept. A separate route exists where the seller misdescribed the yacht or concealed its history: an action founded on error or fraud runs for five years from discovery and aims at rescission of the sale rather than a price reduction. Choosing between the two shapes the entire file.

Does the as is, where is clause bar any claim?

Not against a professional seller. The exclusion of the warranty against latent defects is valid between private parties, and between professionals of the same speciality, but it fails where the seller knew of the defect, and a seller acting in the course of business is presumed to know. Since most brokerage sales involve a professional on one side, the clause is far weaker in practice than its wording suggests. It must also be read under the law governing the sale: a formula lifted from an English law memorandum of agreement does not carry the same effect once French law applies.

The seller is abroad: can I sue in France?

Often, yes. Where the seller is domiciled in the European Union, Regulation 1215/2012 allows proceedings at the seller’s domicile or at the place of delivery of the yacht, and a jurisdiction clause in the memorandum of agreement will be given effect. Outside the Union, the French rules of international jurisdiction and the location of the vessel come into play. The decisive practical point is usually security rather than jurisdiction: if the yacht or another asset of the seller lies in a French port, a conservatory measure protects the claim while the merits are argued where they belong.

Which defects qualify as latent?

Those that existed at the time of sale, were not apparent to a reasonably attentive buyer, and make the yacht unfit for her use or so reduce that use that the buyer would not have bought at the same price. Osmosis, galvanic corrosion, a structural weakness in the hull, an engine whose real hours differ from those declared and a defective repair carried out before the sale are the recurring examples. Ordinary wear and a defect disclosed in the survey are not latent. The question is technical before it is legal, which is why the surveyor’s conclusions decide most cases.

What can be claimed?

Either rescission of the sale against return of the yacht and of the price, or retention of the yacht with a reduction of the price, at the buyer’s choice. Damages are added where the seller knew of the defect, and they can cover repairs, berthing, survey costs, loss of use and the expenses of the sale. Where the claim is founded on fraud instead, the sale is annulled and the parties are restored to their earlier position. The arithmetic differs substantially between these routes, which is why the calculation is made before the claim is formulated.

What should be done first when a defect appears?

Stop, document, and do not repair. Photographs, the yacht’s position, the engine hours and the correspondence are recorded, an independent surveyor is instructed, and the seller and the broker are notified in writing with rights reserved. Repairs carried out before the survey destroy the evidence on which the claim depends, and insurers take the same view. Where the yacht is laid up in a yard, the terms on which she is held are checked at once, because a yard’s retention right can complicate matters considerably while the dispute runs.