ABSTRACT
It is possible to advance three hypotheses:
That at the date of the sale the cladding was fissured.
In this case, if it does not inspect or verify the object of the sale, the purchaser cannot seek to make the vendor responsible for manifest flaws (Civil Code (CC) Art1719). Here the principle of self-responsibility is applicable (an adoption of the French position). Opinions are divided concerning the possibility of claiming a reduction in price, quanti minoris. According to part of the doctrine, this is not incompatible with knowledge of manifest flaws. This view is not unanimously shared, and some consider that the purchaser lacks grounds for any action against the vendor.
That at the date of the sale the defect in the material was not known (CC Art 1719).
By definition, this is a defect hidden at the time of the sale, thus allowing the purchaser to seek reparation. It is immaterial whether the vendor knew about the flaw, as he would have to make restitution even if he did not know. The purchaser can chose between revoking the contract with compensation for expenses incurred or claim a proportional reduction in price.
That at the date of the sale the vendor knew of the defect.
If, in hypothesis (b), the purchaser can establish that the vendor did know about the defect in the material, he can claim full compensation instead of being limited to the expenses incurred under the contract.
In all three situations, the right to action lapses six months after the acceptance of the thing sold.
