Contract Validity Dispute Over Property Classification Error

The case involved a dispute over the validity of a contract where one party alleged a defect in the consent due to error regarding the essential qualities of the object sold, specifically a property's architectural classification, which was not explicitly guaranteed by the seller. The court upheld the lower court's decision, reasoning that for an error to vitiate consent under civil law, it must relate to an essential quality of the thing itself, and while the alleged error concerned a quality (architectural classification) that the buyer considered essential, the lower court reasonably determined that this quality was not objectively essential to the object sold in the context of the transaction, nor was it expressly guaranteed by the seller, thus rejecting the claim that the consent was invalidated by error.