Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on January 15, 1971 RELEASE


Appeal No.: 69-12180
Published in the newsletter PDT de Monts . Mr. ZOUSMANN RPR . AV.GEN. Mr. LAGUERRE Plaintiff AV. MM. CHAREYRE Defender ROQUES

FRENCH REPUBLIC


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE


THE FIRST SUBMISSION, MADE HIS THREE BRANCHES: It follows the order confirming ATTACK (PARIS, March 13, 1969) THE COMPANY REPORTED A BERANGER UNION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE (UCIN) AND ANOTHER SUBSIDIARY OF INDUSTRIAL CREDIT UNION TWO PLOT, Cannes and Villefranche-sur-Mer,
a civil society ESTATE CALLED SCI Alexandria was incorporated and acquired the land in Cannes,
THIS COMPANY HAS MADE A THE COMPANY The Bezange EXCLUSIVE SALES AND COMMISSIONS,
that difficulties have arisen between the SCI Alexandria AND SOCIETY BERANGER and that procedures have been initiated;
THAT, ITS, The MICU CONCLUDED WITH THE SAME COMPANY A Bezange OTHER AGREEMENT GRANTING TO IT THE EXCLUSIVE SALES AND COMMISSIONS ON BUILDING A BUILDING in Villefranche-sur-Mer;
THAT MICU who had applied for a building permit, the prefect of Alpes-Maritimes made ​​him KNOWN BY LETTER OF 12 DECEMBER 1966, THE LAND OF VILLEFRANCHE WAS INCLUDED IN A SUBDIVISION AND ITS SALES was a nullity, that the Administration NOT TAKE ANY ACTION INITIATIVE, BUT IT WAS FOR THE OWNERS INTERESTED REQUEST OF THE REPORT OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL, PRIOR TO CONTINUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ON THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDING PERMIT,
WHICH IS ASSIGNED MICU SELLERS OF LAND IN RESOLUTION OF THE SALE, MADE KNOWN TO THE COMPANY Bezange BY LETTER OF 14 MARS 1967, THE REFUSAL TO GRANT THE PREFECT the building permit AND ACTION TO SET ASIDE THE SALE OF LAND VILLEFRANCHE-SUR-MER,
AS, 24 MARS 1967, THE SCI OF ALEXANDER, FOR THE OPERATION OF CANNES, MICU AND FOR THE Villefranche-sur-Mer, ENTERED WITH THE COMPANY Bezange AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE COMPANY WAS TO RECEIVE THE SUM OF SCI Alexandria 450000 FRANCE AND THE MICU SUM OF 50,000 francs in compensation for giving up ANY AND ALL DISPUTES REPORTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AS A FINAL SETTLEMENT, AND FIXED TRANSACTIONAL,
on 1 July 1967, planning permission was granted to the MICU ;
THE COMPANY Bezange, as it had been a victim of misrepresentation on the PART OF MICU, gave it to VOID IN THE CONVENTION OF 24 MARS 1967 AND DAMAGES
WHEREAS it COMPLAINS AUDIT IS STOPPING the nullity of the transaction, then, by mode, the indivisibility of a transaction is THE PRINCIPLE AND SEVERABILITY The exception, and that the trial court must, as appropriate, shall give THEIR DECISION SO THAT THE PARTY WILL APPEAR CLEARLY, THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE,
THAT THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE TRANSACTION CANCELLED IS PART OF A SET TRANSACTION in which operators are interdependent FROM EACH OTHER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to destroy ONE OF THEM, BUT at the same time, remove the cause and finally OTHER PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF A TRANSACTION GRANTED WITHOUT SUCH A SOLUTION PERSPECTIVE IS JUSTIFIED ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES, IS A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF autonomy denoting BY JUDGES A REAL REDUCTIONS OF CONTRACT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF POWERS and skills,
BUT CONSIDERING that Analysis THE CONVENTION OF 24 MARS 1967, THE JUDGEMENT COMES THIS ACT available in one DOUBLE DOCUMENT TRANSACTION BETWEEN ONE AND SOCIETY SCI Alexandria Bezange ON THE CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT OF 21 MARS 1963 INTEREST TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN CANNES, THE OTHER BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE SAME MICU Bezange REGULATION ON CONDITIONS OF ABANDONMENT OF THE AGREEMENT OF 15 OCTOBER,
HE FOUND THAT THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHO GIVE THEIR CONSENT, FOR EACH SUPPORTS THE OBLIGATIONS;
WHEREAS, these findings, WHO do not denature the ACT of 24 MARS 1967 CONCLUSIONS AND MEET THE COURT OF APPEAL, sovereign interpretation the common intention of the Parties at its conclusion, have deducted NOT EXCEED ITS POWERS THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE ALLOWED A Bezange CONTINUE AGAINST HIS PARTY SPECIAL CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION ON THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT in Villefranche-sur-Mer,
D ‘It follows that the first plea is unfounded
on the second plea, taken in its three branches: WHEREAS it is still CHARGED TO STOP HAVE CANCELLED FOR PARTIAL TRANSACTION DOL 24 MARS 1967, THEN, AS THE MEANS THAT THE ONE HAND, IT’S THE PRICE OF A DISTORTION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED THE COURT OF APPEAL HELD THAT THE COMPANY HAD Bezange been misled MICU BY BECAUSE OF THE ‘assertion of a fact WRONG ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SIMPLE Concealment, not accompanied by maneuver to INDUCE OTHER PARTY IN ERROR, does not constitute DOL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 1116 OF THE CIVIL CODE AND THAT AT ANY TIME THE COURT OF APPEAL IS SUBJECT TO SUCH OPERATIONS FOR FRAUDULENT and finally NOT be inferred from the mere finding of a reluctance IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT IT HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVE THE COMPANY Bezange,
BUT CONSIDERING THE DOL may consist of the silence of a partially hidden the other contracting party a fact that, had it been known to him, would have prevented TO CONTRACT,
WHEREAS THE JUDGEMENT COMES DESCRIBING THE COMPANY THAT THE Bezange 14 MARS 1967 THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF ESTATE VILLEFRANCHE-SUR-MER was rejected by the Prefect without mentioning THE ACCURACY OR THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOES TAKE INITIATIVE ANY FURTHER BECAUSE OF THE BREACH OF THE RULES ON SUBDIVISIONS OR A SUGGESTION MADE BY THE SAME LETTER TO ACHIEVE THE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO CONTINUE THE PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS OF BUILDING PERMITS, The MICU STATED A FACT INCORRECT AND MADE A DOUBLE Concealment, HIDE ALL THE MEANING OF THE SCOPE AND THE LETTER OF PREFECT;
THE COURT OF APPEAL STATEMENT THAT THIS LETTER did not require quite the contrary, continued THE CANCELLATION OF THE SALE, SINCE offered the MICU with all the delays necessary, ensure that the administration will not take any initiative likely to impede the restoration of order FAVOURABLE LOCATION AND NOTES that both, in December 1967 The MICU withdrew its action for annulment of the sale of land;
WHEREAS THESE FINDINGS, THE COURT OF APPEAL, without distorting the letter from the prefect, was able to deduce that these Misrepresentation and this reluctance TAKE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY WERE AND ESPECIALLY FROM THE MICU, A fraudulent nature liable to mislead Bezange COMPANY IN ERROR ON THE GROUNDS OF ITS CONSENT TO THE TRANSACTION OF 24 MARS 1967;
D ‘HE FOLLOWS THE MIDDLE NOT BE ACCEPTED,
FOR THESE REASONS: DISMISSES the appeal against the Judgement of 13 MARS 1969, BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PARIS;



Publication: Supreme Court stops Civil Division 3 N. P. 38 25
The contested decision: Appeal Court PARIS 1969-03-13
titrations and summarized CONTRACTS AND BONDS – CONSENT – DOL – reluctance – CONCEALMENT OF A FACT WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE CONCLUSION OF THE AGREEMENT. Fraud may be established by the SILENCE OF PART CONCEALED its counterparty a fact that, had it been known to him, would have prevented TO CONTRACT. * TRANSACTION – VOID – CAUSES – DOL – DOUBLE transaction brings together into one piece – CANCELLATION OF ONE OF THEY – NO DENATURING – response to the findings. * SALE – BUILDING – BUILDING PERMITS – RULES ON THE SUBDIVISIONS – reluctance – cancellation of the sale. precedent:. CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 1) 1967-02-13 Bulletin 1967 N. I 58 (1) P. 43 (RELEASE). CF. Supreme Court (Commercial Division) Bulletin 1965-10-27 1965 N. III P. 534 479 (RELEASE). CF. Supreme Court (Commercial Division) Bulletin 1969-10-28 1969 N. IV P. 318 299 (RELEASE)

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 19.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវបានបិទ។

%d bloggers like this: