Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on January 17, 2007 Cassation

Appeal No.: 06-10442
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. WEBER





THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling:

The unique way:

Having regard to Article 1116 of the Civil Code;

Whereas, according to the judgment (Paris, October 27, 2005), that MX .., realtor, recipient of promises of sale .. MY granted him on his house, was assigned to make the sale after having exercised the option and making him summation of the deed;

Whereas for the invalidity of purchase options, the decision holds that the fact that MX .. not to have revealed to MY .. essential information on the price of the property he held in his capacity as a real estate agent and realtor, while Y. .., became a farmer laborer, married to a wife in total incapacity to work, could himself know the value of its flag, was a breach of duty of loyalty required of any contractor and decisive characteristic reluctance fraudulent consent of Y. .., within the meaning of section 1116 of the Civil Code;

That in so holding, while the purchaser, even professional, does not have a reporting obligation to the seller the value of the acquired property, the Court of Appeal violated the text referred to above;


Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of October 27, 2005, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Paris;

calls, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before the judgment and to be granted, the returns to the Court of Appeal of Paris, a differently constituted;



Condemns MY .. the expense;



Said that the audit of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, the above will be sent to be transcribed in the margin or as a result of the broken off;



Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 17 January two thousand and seven


Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris (the second room, section B) 2005-10-27

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 1.


%d bloggers like this: