I PUBLIC LAW I The contractor’s error does not constitute an irregularity in a public contract amendment and precludes its challenge

Administrative Court of Bordeaux, December 2, 2025, No. 2400089

1) The Facts

The municipality of Taillan-Médoc awarded Lot No. 4, “Rammed earth wall with stone plaster,” to the company TMH in a works contract for the construction of a school complex. During the execution of the work, the amount of the lot was reduced by an amendment. This amount decreased by nearly €100,000, from €492,066.24 to €391,818.50 including VAT. While the amendment was indeed signed by the head of THM – but with the notation “subject to objection” – it is the subject of a full legal challenge contesting the validity of the contract (known as the “Béziers I” appeal), brought before the Administrative Court of Bordeaux.

2) The plaintiff’s argument

TMH requests the annulment or, in the alternative, the termination of the amendment, arguing that the amount of the recorded decrease in value was incorrect and that this amendment should, on the contrary, have validated a gain in value.

3) The court’s position

The court rejects this request, finding that this error, even if proven, is not sufficient to constitute an irregularity in the amendment, since the plaintiff company has not established that this signature, and more generally, its consent to this amendment and to the reduction in the contract amount it provides for, were vitiated in any way.

Furthermore, while the phrase “subject to appeal” allows the contractor to subsequently contest, by way of appeal, the validity of service orders issued unilaterally by the project owner, it is, in the absence of any clarification regarding the purpose and limits of this reservation, entirely without effect in the context of a reciprocal agreement.

4) What conclusions can be drawn from this decision?

In accordance with the principles of civil law, simply invoking an error is not sufficient to vitiate consent and lead to the annulment of the contract. This error must also concern essential elements of the contract and not be inexcusable, meaning that it must not result from gross negligence on the part of the party invoking it. This appeared to be the case here, since the plaintiff argued only that the amendment should have validated an added value. However, as the Administrative Court rightly points out, it was up to the applicant company, in the event of disagreement with the content of this amendment, to refuse to sign it.

Thus, once the amendment is signed, its provisions are no longer contestable, unless it provides for the possibility of contesting certain points, which was not the case here, the phrase “subject to objection” being, according to the Administrative Court, entirely without effect.

This solution seems logical: deriving from such a particularly vague formula a right for the contract holder not to perform the obligations arising from the amendment would undermine the binding force of the contract.