Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on January 13, 1999 Rejection.

Appeal No.: 96-18309
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Ms Fossereau, acting senior advisor. . Rapporteur: Mr. Pronier. Attorney General: Mr. Weber. Lawyers: CPS and Delaporte Briard, CPA Monod and Colin.



The unique way:

Whereas, according to the judgment (Paris, May 24, 1996), that, according to a note of January 8, 1980, Ms. X. .. sold property to the company Jojema; that, by act of May 7, 1991, Ms. X. .. society has assigned Jojema annulment of the sale for moral violence;

Whereas the company Jojema complains that stopping to host this application then, according to the means, first, that judges may order the revocation of a convention on the basis of Articles 1111 and following of the Civil Code after having examined whether the violence they retain this property will prove decisive for the consent of the alleged victim, the mere fact of this violence is in itself insufficient in the case, trial judges have merely asserts that Ms. X. .. had suffered physical and psychological violence without specifying, as they were invited by the company Jojema, how the violence allegedly carried had determined the consent of the appellant to sell the property in dispute, in so ruling, the court Appeals denied his decision as a legal basis under Articles 1111 and following of the Civil Code, on the other hand, argued that the acts of violence must be prior or concomitant expression of consent, that is crucial to glance elements sporadic waves and far between in the time (1972-1987), or accurate, but later (April-May 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1986) the sale occurred January 8, 1980, the Court of appeal has not established a direct temporal relationship between the practices identified and the expression of consent, thus violating the articles referred to previous grievance;

But having waited supremely successful as Ms. X. .. had suffered from the community members led by Roger Melchior, 1972 to November 1987, when he left, the physical and psychological violence such as to make an impression on a reasonable and to inspire fear expose his person or property to a considerable harm and present, while separated from her husband and having dependent children, she was vulnerable and that the violence had led to conclude the deed of his house for Jojema society so that community members were housed in this building, the court of appeal, which could be based on background information after the date of contract formation, was legally justified its decision;


Dismiss the appeal.

Publication: Bulletin No. III 1999 p. 11 7
The Dalloz, 2000-01-27, No. 4, p. 76, note C. Willmann.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1996-05-24

Precedents: A CLOSER: Civil Division 3, 1984-02-07, Bulletin 1984, III, No. 27, p. 22 (cassation) Commercial Division, 1994-12-13, Bulletin 1994, IV, No. 375 (1), p. 309 (partial Cassation


Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 14.


%d bloggers like this: