A couple who sued a seller as an access road into their building plot was not built have failed in their claim for damages, although they were entitled to withdraw from the contract.

Georges and Agnes Dumont bought a plot of land from the property company Domaine de la Grange, who in turn undertook to construct a right of way into the land, provided the couple got planning permission on the site for a new home.

Although the local council granted planning approval, neighbours objected to the development and duly lodged a formal planning appeal in the French courts.

With the outcome uncertain, the Domaine de la Grange delayed in proceeding with construction of the access road.

Nevertheless, as planning consent had been granted, they demanded that the sellers sign the final contract, as part of which they undertook to complete construction of the right of way.

The couple refused to sign on the basis that until the outcome of the planning appeal was known, it was no means certain that they would actually be able to build their home!

The seller argued that as planning consent had been obtained then the condition suspensive in the contract had been fulfilled. Construction of the access was merely a prior condition of completion, which they undertook to honour.

With neither side willing to concede, the case ended up in front of French judges when the couple claimed that, as the seller had not complied with time set down in the contract for completion of the construction works, they were entitled to walk away from the sale.

A French court of appeal agreed with them and also awarded them €30,000 in damages.

However, the case went to the supreme court of France, the Cour de Cassation, who heard the appeal from the seller against the decision.

They judged that under the terms set out in the contract the couple should first have given notice to the seller of any non-compliance concerning the access road.

Thus, although they were well within their rights not to complete on the sale as the access road had not been provided, their procedural failure denied them any right to damages.

What the case clearly demonstrates, therefore, is the need for due procedure to be clearly followed in such disputes, including proper warning to the party with whom the dispute is taking place.