Short answer. Largely yes. Article 1641 provides that for all matters not specifically provided for in the Title on barter, barter is governed by the rules on sales. So the sales provisions fill in wherever the short set of barter-specific rules is silent, which is most of the time.
What the law says
As to all matters not specifically provided for in this Title, barter shall be governed by the provisions of the preceding Title relating to sales.
Civil Code, Article 1641 — Barter Follows the Rules on Sales. Read the full provision →
What barter is, and why it resembles sale
Barter, or exchange, is a contract in which each party gives one thing in return for another — a swap of goods rather than goods for money. It sits right beside sale in the Civil Code, and for good reason: economically the two are almost the same transaction, the only structural difference being that in a sale one side gives money as the price while in barter both sides give things. Because they are so alike, the Code did not write a full, separate rulebook for barter. It gave barter a short Title of its own and then, for everything that Title leaves out, sent the reader to the law on sales.
The gap-filling rule
That referral is the whole point of Article 1641: As to all matters not specifically provided for in this Title, barter shall be governed by the provisions of the preceding Title relating to sales. The Title on barter contains only a handful of provisions addressing the few points peculiar to an exchange. Everything else — and it is most of what can arise — is governed by the rules on sales, applied to barter as if each party were at once a seller of the thing he gives and a buyer of the thing he receives. So a swap deal is not a lightly regulated handshake; it carries almost the entire apparatus of the law of sales behind it.
What this imports: warranties, eviction, delivery
In practical terms this imports the substantial protections of sales law into an exchange. The obligations of a seller to deliver the thing and to transfer it, the warranty against hidden defects, the warranty against eviction where a third person turns out to have a better right, the rules on risk and on when ownership passes — these apply to each side of a barter, because each side stands as a seller of what he hands over. A party who swaps for a thing that proves defective, or that is taken from him by someone with a superior title, therefore has recourse built on the same footing as a buyer under a sale, not a lesser one.
Where barter's own rules still differ
Barter keeps only a few rules of its own, for the situations that money-for-goods cannot present — chiefly what happens when a party is or becomes unable to make good on the thing he was to give, or is evicted from what he received, where the remedy may be to recover the thing he parted with rather than a price. Those specific provisions govern where they apply. But for the ordinary run of questions — delivery, defects, title, and the consequences of breach — the answer for a swap is found in the law of sales. So when assessing a barter, treat it as a sale in substance and read the sales provisions unless a barter-specific rule squarely covers the point.