In view of article 1116 Code civil:

Given that the fifty photographs by Baldus which Mme Boucher offered at public auction in 1986 were purchased by M. Clin for 1,000 francs each, that in 1989 when Mme Boucher had tracked down M. Clin she sold him thirty-five more photographs by Baldus followed by fifty more, all at the same price, fixed by herself; that after Mme Boucher learnt that Baldus was a photographer of very great repute she caused criminal proceedings to be opened against M. Clin, which were dismissed, and now claims that the sales be annulled for fraud;

Given that the decision below found that prior to making these purchases from Mme Boucher M. Clin had already sold the photographs he had bought at auction at a price greatly superior to what he had paid and that he was consequently well aware that in buying further photographs at 1,000 francs a piece, that is, at a price which was risible in comparison with their value on the art market, and then ordered M. Clin to pay Mme Boucher the sum of 1,915,000 francs as the value of the photographs sold by mutual agreement, less 85,000 francs already received by Mme Boucher, on the ground that he had contravened his obligation of good faith which is incumbent on all contracting parties and that by failing to disclose the true value of the photographs he had induced Mme Boucher to make a sale which she would otherwise not have consented to;

Given that in so deciding when the purchaser was under no such obligation of disclosure, the court of appeal has violated the text cited above;

For these reasons, QUASHES the decision of the Court of Appeal of Versailles dated 5 December 1997 and remands the matter to the Court of Appeal of Amiens.

Subsequent Developments

Civ 1, 03/05/2000, B. n° 131 : The doctrine set out in this judgement has not subsequently been confirmed or contradicted by the Cour de Cassation. Legal writers have however pointed out that it was difficult to reconcile the case with a judgement dated 15 October 2000 (Civ. 3, Bull. No. 171) – which attributed deceitful reticence to a purchaser of land who abstained from informing the seller of the richness of his subsoil – although they have proposed various interpretations (sometimes divergent) which achieve such reconciliation; thus, it has been suggested that silence maintained by one of the parties in case of mistake relating only to the commercial value of the asset sold would never, by itself, amount to deceitful reticence, as was the situation in the judgement of 03 May 2000, whereas the silence maintained in the case of 15 November 2000 concerned the quality of the earth on the land itself (cf. Dalloz 2002, Tournafond, case law p. 928). Reference may also be made to a decision of the Court of Appeal of Colmar dated 10 March 2004 which found deceitful reticence in a case of defective information or even incorrect data given to the purchaser of a restaurant and relating to the innate qualities of the restaurant.