A business customer is not necessarily a product expert
An experienced business can understand its operations without knowing whether a proposed product is suitable for its equipment. Conversely, a buyer can understand machinery without working in the seller’s industry.
The French devoir de conseil addressed here concerns the relationship between the product and its intended use. Supplying technical specifications is not necessarily the same as explaining their practical implications to the buyer.
The competence test already appeared in Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, March 22, 2017, No. 15-16.315. Two 2026 decisions illustrate how it works. They do not create a blanket exemption for B2B sellers.
For U.S. readers: this article explains French domestic sales law. It is not a statement of U.S. warranty law. Cross-border transactions require a separate governing-law review rather than an assumption that every sale to France follows the same rules.
Two cases, one competence test
The quarry operator understood the machinery
In Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, July 8, 2026, No. 25-11.256, a quarry operator sought termination of an excavator sale and damages after malfunctions, relying on its different specialty from the seller.
The appeal was rejected. Fourteen years of quarry operations and prior excavator ownership supported the finding of technical competence. In those circumstances, the seller did not owe the disputed advice about suitability for use.
The butcher’s experience did not establish cleaning-product expertise
In Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, May 6, 2026, No. 25-12.541, a butcher reported corrosion after using a cleaning product. The appellate court had relied partly on his experience and understandable instructions to reject his claim.
The ruling was partially set aside: those reasons did not establish the necessary technical competence. The seller had to investigate the buyer’s needs. The case was remanded, not finally resolved by an award of substantive damages.
Is a business buyer protected like a consumer?
Not in exactly the same way. Article L. 111-1 of the French Consumer Code requires specified pre-contract information for consumers, including essential characteristics, price and warranties. That consumer framework does not simply carry over in full to business sales.
In B2B transactions, advice about suitability depends on the customer’s knowledge of the product. An inexperienced business may need substantial guidance. A competent buyer may not be owed explanations about matters it can assess itself.
Other duties remain separate. Article 1112-1 of the French Civil Code requires disclosure, subject to its conditions, of known information decisive to the other party’s consent where that party legitimately lacks the information or relies on its counterparty. A finding that technical advice was unnecessary is not blanket permission to withhold such information.
Who must prove that advice was provided?
Whether an obligation exists is a different question from whether it was performed. Article 1353 of the French Civil Code places the initial burden of establishing an obligation on the party seeking enforcement and requires a party claiming to have discharged it to substantiate that position.
Where advice is owed, retaining the requirements discussed, recommendations given and limitations explained helps the seller document performance. An invoice records a sale; it does not necessarily record the advice that preceded it.
Buyers should document the other side of the discussion. Operating conditions, compatibility requirements and required capacity should become express contractual requirements rather than assumptions about what the supplier must have understood.
What are the consequences of inadequate advice?
The principal risk discussed here is contractual liability, not a fixed regulatory fine. Under Article 1231-1 of the French Civil Code, damages may follow a failure to perform an obligation. The claim still requires loss attributable to that failure. Neither case establishes a standard compensation amount for inadequate advice.
Termination of the sale, known as résolution, is also conditional. Article 1224 of the French Civil Code provides, among other routes, for judicial termination following sufficiently serious non-performance. A contractual termination clause may provide a separate route. Dissatisfaction with equipment does not automatically cancel the transaction.
The timing of the contract matters: the excavator was purchased in 2014 and was governed by pre-2016 contract law. The current statutory provisions explain today’s general framework, not a retroactive legal basis for that purchase.
How should companies apply the lesson beyond these cases?
For technical goods, the operational question is specific: can this customer assess this product for this intended use? Years in business and prior purchases are evidence to assess, not automatic thresholds that excuse every supplier.
As an illustration, understanding a production line does not necessarily establish expertise in chemicals compatible with its components. A useful sales record would identify the materials, operating conditions and limitations discussed before purchase.
The same documentation discipline is useful for technology and service procurement. However, software subscriptions, consulting and managed services require their own contractual analysis. These sales decisions should not be presented as determining every supplier obligation across all B2B markets.
Does a business customer always have a right to technical advice?
No. The answer depends on its ability to assess the product’s characteristics and suitability. Business status alone does not establish that ability.
Must the buyer work in the same industry as the seller?
No. The relevant issue is actual competence concerning the product, not whether the parties have matching specialties.
Do written product instructions discharge the duty?
Not necessarily. Where advice is owed, the seller’s response must address the relevant use. Generic instructions alone do not demonstrate that the buyer’s needs were investigated.
Does a technically experienced buyer lose every possible claim?
No. Advice about suitability is only one issue. Contractual promises, warranties and relevant pre-contract disclosure duties require separate analysis.
Protecting the sale before a dispute arises
Legal, sales and procurement teams can use a shared record of requirements, technical capabilities, warnings and accepted specifications. This helps sellers distinguish what they promised from later expectations, while helping buyers turn essential needs into verifiable commitments.