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

Short answer. The buyer of a yacht with a hidden defect that existed before the sale relies on the warranty of Articles 1641 et seq. of the Civil Code and must sue within two years of discovering the defect (Article 1648), and no later than twenty years after the sale (Article 2232). Between private parties, an “as is” clause is valid unless the seller knew of the defect (Article 1643); a professional seller cannot rely on it. A yacht that does not match the contractual description raises a non-conformity claim, time-barred after five years (Article 2224), and intentional concealment of decisive information is fraud (Article 1137), the action for nullity running from its discovery (Article 1144). Before any trial, an expert survey can be ordered in summary proceedings (Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and the vessel can be arrested (Article L. 5114-22 of the Transport Code).

Yacht on the French Riviera? Our four yacht services (purchase review, charter and VAT, crew contracts, emergency line) are gathered on one page: French yacht lawyer, French Riviera.

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 every French port, in mainland France and overseas, from Le Havre to Marseille and from Nantes-Saint-Nazaire to Antibes as well as in the French Caribbean, Réunion and New Caledonia, as well as before the Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris, and works in English with shipowners, P&I clubs and foreign counsel.

A latent defect claim is not the only route. On a new boat, the remedy often lies in acceptance and the builder’s warranty, covered on our refit and newbuild page. If the defect should have come to light before the purchase, the questions of pre-purchase due diligence and of the broker’s liability also arise. For the overall picture, see yacht disputes and our maritime law practice.

Latent defect, non-conformity or fraud: three actions, three time limits

Three legal bases coexist, and the choice is often made by looking at the timetable first. The warranty against latent defects (Article 1641 of the Civil Code) requires a defect that predates the sale, was hidden and makes the vessel unfit for the use expected of it; the action is time-barred two years after discovery (Article 1648). Non-conformity sanctions a yacht that differs from the one promised: a year of build, a yard or a number of engine hours that do not match the contract. The action is then subject to the ordinary five-year limitation period running from the day the buyer knew the facts (Article 2224).

Fraud, finally, covers schemes and lies, but also the intentional concealment of information the seller knew to be decisive for the buyer (Article 1137). It opens the way to annulment, within a period running from its discovery (Article 1144), and it neutralises any clause that would have limited the warranty. Falsified engine hours are less a matter of latent defect than of non-conformity, or even fraud.

Characterising correctly also means choosing the right expert: the specialist instructed to prove long-standing osmosis is not the one who will demonstrate that a meter was tampered with.

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.

On time limits, exclusion clauses and evidence, see our article Latent defects on a second-hand yacht: remedies and time limits.

On the “as is” clause of the MYBA contract, see our article on what “as is, where is” means in a MYBA contract and how to protect yourself.

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.

How does a latent defect case actually begin?

With an expert appraisal, not a writ. Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an investigative measure to be ordered where there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any proceedings, evidence of facts on which the outcome of a dispute may depend. In practice, this means asking the summary proceedings judge to appoint a court expert, in adversarial proceedings, before bringing the claim on the merits. Three reasons justify it. The damage is recorded before repairs erase it. The report becomes binding on everyone who was joined, which avoids repeating the exercise. And the appraisal often leads the opponent to settle, without a judgment being needed. Going to the merits without an appraisal amounts to asking the court to decide on photographs.

Who should be sued, the seller or the yard?

Usually both, and the question is settled at the outset. The seller answers for the warranty against latent defects under the sale. The builder or the repairer may answer for an original defect or for defective work. Where the vessel has changed hands several times, each link in the chain is concerned, and it is more effective to join everyone to the court appraisal than to proceed in stages. The classic mistake is to sue only one’s own seller, often a private individual of limited means, when the real liability lies further up the chain. The list is drawn up on the basis of the boat’s original documents, and it determines the value of everything that follows.

How much does a court-ordered appraisal cost, and who advances it?

The judge sets a deposit payable by the claimant, commonly ranging from a few thousand to around ten thousand euros for a pleasure craft, depending on complexity and on the investigations required: hauling out, crane, structural analyses. This sum is advanced, not lost: it forms part of the costs whose allocation will be decided with the merits. Counsel’s fees are added and, often, those of a party expert who attends the operations. It is an investment decided in light of two factors: the estimated cost of repairs and the solvency of the defendants. Launching an appraisal against an insolvent seller produces a fine report and no compensation.

What are the real chances of success?

They turn on three points that can be assessed from the first consultation. Whether the damage predates the sale, the central question that the appraisal will settle. Whether the defect was hidden, judged by what a normally diligent buyer could have observed, which makes the content of the survey decisive. And the gap between what was advertised and the real condition, the original listing and the technical documentation often being the most useful documents in the file. Where all three are present, the outcome is rarely in doubt and the discussion is about the amount. Where one is missing, it is better to know before incurring costs than to discover it when the report is filed.

Is a settlement preferable to a judgment?

Often, and the right moment can be identified. Once the expert’s report has been filed, the parties have the same information, and the margin of uncertainty that justified litigating shrinks considerably. That is the stage at which most latent defect cases are concluded, generally on a price reduction corresponding to all or part of the cost of repairs. Settling earlier means negotiating blind; settling later adds two years of proceedings for a comparable result. Two points are negotiated together with the amount: who bears the appraisal costs already advanced, and the mutual waiver of claims, which must be defined precisely.

Matters in this field are handled by Hervé Guyader, avocat at the Paris Bar and Doctor of Law. Page updated on 1 November 2026.