The article deals with the early phase of the practice of selling offices (vénalité des offices) in sixteenth-century France, from the establishment of the bureau des parties casuelles (the department of casual revenues) in 1523—1524 to the introduction of an annual tax (the paulette) in 1604, which is usually considered as a sign of the emergence of the hereditary ownership of offices. In order to understand the causes of the widespread prevalence of this practice in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it may be useful to consider the treatment of the notion of office by French jurists of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In their interpretation, offices are notably treated like fiefs, being described as conditional and hierarchical. However, this concept corresponds more to the traditional Crown policy of ‘granting’ offices based on the idea of donation (in the unfavourable financial situation of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries the kings of France sought to draw income from the sale of newly established offices), while the emergence of the venality of offices as legal practice resulted in revolutionary changes, affecting both the character of rulership (shifting from patrimonial ‘household’ to administrative bureaucratic regime) and the attitude of subjects to the service for the benefit of the state. The article is based on the concept developed by the Franch historian Robert Descimon, who had proposed to distinguish between legal and customary venality of offices: the legal practice was applied to “venal” offices (offices vénaux), while the customary practice dealt with “non-venal” offices (offices non vénaux). “Venal” offices could be purchased through the department of casual revenues with the payment of a finance fixed by the Royal Council. The charge for “non-venal” offices was not determined; the income from their sale went not to the treasury, but to intermediaries — to the high officers of the kingdom (chancellor, heads of departments etc.), to the royal favourites or even to the king himself. Nevertheless, both types of offices could be sold. While acknowledging the rights of an officer regarding the amount paid for the office, the Crown made a kind of contract with him, assuming obligations to ensure his investment. The king could not deprive an officer of his office without reimbursement, as far as the contract had been “confirmed” by the treasurer with a receipt issued upon the payment to the department of casual revenues. It was precisely the acknowledgement of an entirely novel role of financial payment for offices in the frame of relations between the king and his officers that made irreversible the holders’ rights for their offices.