Facts
In 1979, the plaintiff X. acquired the property "U." in V. SH. He had a renovation project drawn up by an architect, but did not have it executed because the estimated costs of around 700,000 francs seemed too high to him. Subsequently, conversion work, including the installation of a new heating system, was undertaken without the involvement of the architect. The plaintiff's partner's brother, Y. (the defendant), a heating installer by profession, assisted with these works. On 27 January 1985, the new heating system ceased to function, causing the plaintiff damage that he estimates at 22,826.50 francs and for which he holds the defendant responsible.Considerations
The central issue is whether the defendant had contractually undertaken to assume the overall coordination of the installation of the heating system, or whether he had acted merely out of accommodation, without the intention of entering into a legal obligation.
The FC (Federal Court) considers that the factual findings of the lower instance do not allow the conclusion that the defendant had a contractual intention. Although in the field of work services for third parties, the threshold for contractual ties is relatively low, there can also be non-binding accommodations that do not create a contractual obligation, particularly in the absence of the service provider's own legal or economic interest in the assistance provided. In the present case, the fact that the defendant had helped the plaintiff obtain materials on more favorable terms and had assisted him in carrying out the work was not sufficient for the plaintiff to be able to consider in good faith that the defendant had undertaken responsibility for the coordination of the project and the flawless design of the…