Short answer. Generally yes. Under Article 1730, if the work is subject to the approval of a third person, his decision shall be final — except in case of fraud or manifest error. So the parties are bound by that person's judgment on the work, unless it was tainted by dishonesty or is plainly and obviously wrong.
What the law says
If the work is subject to the approval of a third person, his decision shall be final, except in case of fraud or manifest error.
Civil Code, Article 1730 — Work Done To Satisfaction. Read the full provision →
The third person's word is meant to settle things
When a construction or work contract leaves acceptance to an outside judge, the law gives that choice real teeth. Article 1730 provides that if the work is subject to the approval of a third person, his decision shall be final, except in case of fraud or manifest error. The whole reason parties name a third person — an architect, an engineer, an inspector — is to have a neutral evaluator whose call ends the argument over whether the work measures up. The law honours that intent by treating the decision as final. A party who simply dislikes the outcome cannot re-litigate the quality of the work as though the appraisal never happened.
The two exceptions: fraud and manifest error
Finality is not absolute. The article keeps two doors open. A decision can be set aside for fraud — where the third person was dishonest, colluded with a party, or was corrupted — because a rigged judgment is no judgment at all. It can also be attacked for manifest error, meaning a mistake so plain and obvious that it leaps out, not merely a debatable difference of professional opinion. The bar is deliberately high. A party challenging the decision must show real fraud or a clear, evident blunder; ordinary disagreement with the evaluator's assessment, however sincere, is not enough to undo it.
Approval by a third person versus the owner's satisfaction
Article 1730 actually addresses two arrangements. The first sentence covers work to be done to the satisfaction of the proprietor: there, if the owner and the worker disagree, the question shall be subject to expert judgment rather than left to the owner's whim. The second sentence covers approval by a third person, whose decision is final save for fraud or manifest error. The difference matters. Making the owner personally the judge does not give the owner an unchecked veto — a dispute goes to an expert. Naming an independent third person, by contrast, produces a decision the parties agreed in advance to accept as conclusive.
What this means when you contract
If your agreement makes the work subject to a named third person's approval, you are accepting that person's decision as the practical end of the quality question. That can be a strength — it avoids drawn-out fights — but it means choosing the evaluator carefully and defining the standards he will apply. If you later believe the decision was procured by fraud or is manifestly erroneous, you may challenge it, but be ready to prove that, not just to argue the merits again. Drafting the approval clause clearly, and picking a genuinely independent and competent third person, is the best protection against being bound to a decision you cannot live with.