Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on March 21, 2006 Rejection.


Appeal No.: 03-16075
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Ancel. Rapporteur: Ms. Marais. Attorney General: Mr. Sarcelet. Lawyers: Gatineau SCP, SCP Boré and Salve of Bruneton, SCP Parmentier and Didier.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

 

Whereas MX .. acquired July 30, 1997 from the company Sud Auto Citroen motor vehicle at a price of EUR 26 107.20; the vehicle with various dysfunctions, lacquéreur exercised prohibitive action in warranty against latent defects against the seller , which called in the manufacturer warranty, the company Citroen automobiles; that the contested decision (Toulouse, May 7, 2003) declared the cancellation of the sale and sentenced on that basis the company Auto Citroen South, under the manufacturer’s warranty, to return the entire purchase price and to pay damages; 

 

The first two branches of the third ground of appeal should the company Citroen cars and cross-appeal by the company Southern Auto Citroen, as contained in their respective briefs and are appended: 

 

Whereas it is complained that the appeals court to have ordered the seller to pay MX .. the sum of EUR 26 107.20 in restitution of the price without taking into consideration the fact that he had benefited from the enjoyment of the vehicle and having traveled over 100,000 kilometers he had written down, then, by type: 

 

1 / of assuming that absent a contract actually existed and produced indelible effects, the fiction of retroactivity does not ignore the acts of use which could benefit the contractors, as a result, when a sale is solved for latent defects, the court shall recognize the advantage that the buyer has taken possession of this operation resulting in a compensation claim with the return of the price that the Automobiles Citroën SA has asked the judge to take undoubtedly account for the use made by MX .. Vehicle almost 100 000 km on the clock before the trial judge will rule; 


 

that, by failing to consider this enjoyment, undeniable and consistent, and to evaluate the price, while condemning the seller to refund the price, the judge violated Articles 1134, 1371 and 1644 of the Civil Code; 

 

2 / in any case, if he can get compensation for the utilisaion one of the thing, the seller may be compensated for the damage immediately felt due to wear it; that ‘by failing to consider the undeniable wear of a vehicle having covered 100 000 km, to compensate the seller, even if it is responsible for selling something flawed, JA again violated Articles 1134, 1371 and 1644 of the Civil Code; 

 

But given that in terms of warranty against hidden defects, if the purchaser exercises the unacceptable action under section 1644 of the Civil Code, the seller bound to refund the price received is not entitled to an indemnity related to the use of the thing sold or wear resulting from such use and that therefore the Court of Appeal ordered right to restitution from the seller to the buyer of the entire sale price as the plea is unfounded in all of its two branches; 

 

On the other complaints the main appeal of the Citroën automobile company and cross-appeal by the company Southern Auto Citroen, as contained in the respective memories of these companies and are appended: 

 

Whereas there is no need to rule on the other complaints that are not likely to permetre admission appeals; 

 

FOR THESE REASONS: 

 

DISMISSES the appeal of the Citroën automobile company and the appeal of the company led South Auto Citroen; 

 

Leaves of Automobiles Citroën and society South Auto Citroen for costs relating to their respective appeal; 

 

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, reject applications; 


 

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 21 March two thousand and six. 

 



Publication: Bulletin 2006 I No. 171 p. 151
Quarterly Review of Commercial and Economic Law, 2006-10, No. 4, p. 907, Bernard BOULOC observations.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Toulouse, 2003-05-07

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on March 21, 2006 Partial Cassation.


Appeal No.: 03-16307
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Ancel. Rapporteur: Ms. Marais. Attorney General: Mr. Sarcelet. Lawyer: Me Hémery.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

 

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

 

 

Acknowledges in MX .. of what he withdraws his appeal against society and society Roxcime Besnard and X. .. ; 


 

Whereas MX .. acquired on 1 September 1998, with the company Pinel a new vehicle equipped with an LPG 

 

an amicable expertise revealed that the system was inadequate and had resulted in premature engine wear, and that MX .. Pinel has assigned the company a guarantee against hidden defects seeking restitution of the price and payment of damages, the company has taken advantage of Pinel compensation for the depreciation of the vehicle resulting from its use by the purchaser ; 

 

The second plea, as set out in the statement of claim and annexed: 

 

Whereas there is no need to rule on this ground would not be such as to permit the admission of the appeal; 

 

But on the first plea in his first branch: 

 

Having regard to Articles 1641 and 1644 and following of the Civil Code; 

 

Whereas in terms of warranty against hidden defects, when the buyer exercises the action unacceptable, the seller must return the price he has received, is not entitled to receive compensation related to the use of the thing sold or wear resulting from this use; 

 

Whereas, to accommodate the request of the company Pinel, stopping states that the vehicle had already in July 1999 a mileage of more than 50 000 km had been degraded due to its use and the seller was justified in getting the price is returned stopped at the value of the Argus; 

 

What is decisive and the Court of Appeal violated the above documents; 

 

FOR THESE REASONS, and without the need to rule on the second part of the way first: 

 

Quashed, but only in that it reduced the amount of the refund of the price payable by the company Pinel and attached it to the sum of 8572 euros, the decision of 6 December 2002, the parties by the Court of Appeal of Rennes; shall, therefore, as to what the cause and the parties in the state they were before the judgment and to be granted, the returns before the Court of Appeal otherwise composed of Rennes; 


 

Pinel condemns the company for costs; 

 

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the application for MX .. ; 

 

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 partially broken off; 

 

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 21 March two thousand and six. 



Publication: Bulletin 2006 I No. 172 p. 151
Quarterly Review of Commercial and Economic Law, 2006-10, No. 4, p. 907, Bernard BOULOC observations.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Rennes, 2002-12-06

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on March 21, 2006 Rejection.


Appeal No.: 03-16407
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Ancel. Rapporteur: Ms. Marais. Attorney General: Mr. Sarcelet. Lawyers: SCP-Thomas and Bénabent Raquin, SCP-Couturier Ancel and Heller, Peignot and CPA Garreau.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

 

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

 


 

The second part of the single main appeal of the EURL Lipskind Olivier: 

 

Whereas EURL Lipskind Olivier who bought in MX .., in February 1994, a mare suffering from a defect, the seller has assigned resolution of the sale and payment of pension and farrier committed after the This, from March 1994 to December 1995, by a previous decision of this room (Cass Civ 1., July 16, 1998, No. 1346) the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal after ordered the cancellation of the sale had sentenced the seller to the buyer to pay these fees on the grounds that they do not constitute expenses of sale, not directly related to the contract, it is complains that the judgment giving a preliminary (Douai, March 17, 2003) have rejected the claim made otherwise, then, in a way that the cancellation of the sale of a thing by the effect of Action takes prohibitive retroactive destruction of such sale; the game of retroactivity attached to the resolution control to apply the law of restitution and compensation, the parties to be delivered in the same state as if the thing n ‘ had never left the estate of the seller in this case with regard to the cancellation of the sale of a mare for latent defects, the principle of rehabilitation earlier, which required the purchaser to return seller not only the animal but also the products, each was required to reimburse the seller to the buyer not only the price received but expenditure on maintenance and conservation of the animal that holding, however, to defeat the request of the EURL Lipskind for reimbursement of boarding costs and shoeing the mare, the special duty of the sales contract was necessary in the matter of the right common yet the refunds applicable to the effects of unacceptable action, the court of appeal violated Articles 1184, 1641, 1644 and 1646 of the Civil Code; 


 

But given that, pursuant to specific provisions governing refunds for warranty against hidden defects, the seller in good faith is liable to the purchaser at the restitution of the price received and the reimbursement of expenses incurred in the sale and that therefore the Court of Appeal accepted, rightly, that the company Lipskind, who did not contest the good faith of the seller was not entitled to obtain MX .. reimbursement of the costs of pensions and farrier, and that the plea is unfounded; 

 

And the first part of the single main appeal of the EURL Lipskind Olivier and on both grounds of appeal .. MX incident, as contained in their respective briefs and are appended: 

 

Whereas there is need to rule on the means that would not be such as to permit the admission of the appeal; 


 

FOR THESE REASONS: 

 

DISMISSES the appeal of the EURL Lipskind Olivier and cross-appeal of MX .. ; 

 

Leaves the EURL Lipskind Olivier and MX .. the burden of costs associated with their respective appeals; 

 

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejects claims Y. .. and MX .. ; 

 

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 21 March two thousand and six. 



Publication: Bulletin 2006 I No. 173 p. 152
Quarterly Review of Commercial and Economic Law, 2006-10, No. 4, p. 907, Bernard BOULOC observations.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Douai, 2003-03-17

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on October 6, 2004 Cassation


Appeal No.: 03-12497
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Weber. Rapporteur: Ms. Gabet. Attorney General: Mr. Guerin. Lawyers: CPS Bachellier and Potier de la Varde, the SCP-Desaché Le Bret (Case No. 1), the SCP Boré and Salve of Bruneton, Peignot and CPA Garreau (Case No. 2), Me, The Prado, CPA Lyon-Caen, Fabiani and Thiriez (Case No. 3).

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

 

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

 

 

The unique way: 

 

Having regard to Article 1641 of the Civil Code; 

 

Whereas the seller is required to guarantee in respect of hidden defects of the thing sold which render it unfit for the purpose for which it was intended, or which so diminish this use, the buyer would not have acquired or would have paid a lower price if he had known; 


 

Whereas, according to the judgment (Bordeaux, January 13, 2003), the spouses X. .. signed November 25, 1999, a promise indenture for the sale of an apartment owned by Mrs. Y. .. , A disclaimer of warranty reason, including latent defects, was on the act, authorized to enter the premises before signing the deed, Mr and Mrs X. .. found the existence of loud noises from boilers for collective use of the condominium, they refused to repeat the deed and assigned Ms. Y. .. solving sale on the basis of Article 1603 of the Civil Code and have alternative invoked Articles 1641 of the Code; 

 

Whereas for rejecting these claims, holding off the hidden defect can not result from a disorder having its origin in a piece of equipment in the building, outside the apartment; 

 

That in so ruling, the Court of Appeal, which added to the law a restriction that does not, violated the text referred to above; 

 

FOR THESE REASONS: 

 

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of January 13, 2003, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux shall, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before said stop, and to be granted, the returns to the Court of Appeal of Montpellier; 

 

Condemns Ms. Y. .. the expense; 

 

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the request of Mrs. Y. .. ; 

 

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 6 October two thousand and four. 



Publication: Bulletin No. 2004 III p. 167 153
The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Bordeaux, 2003-01-13
titrations and summarized SALE – Warranty – Latent defects – Action prohibitive – Difference with the action for breach of contract.
 

 

Violates section 1641 of the Civil Code the court of appeal which holds that the lack of sealing a flat roof is a non-compliance, although it noted that it precluded the use of the building under normal conditions (Case 1). 

 

Similarly, violates section 1641 of the Code by adding a restriction to the law she has no court of appeal, to dismiss the action in warranty against hidden defects brought by purchasers of an apartment because loud noises from boilers in the building, holds that the latent defect can not result from a disorder which has its roots in a piece of equipment in the building outside the apartment sold (Case No. 2). 

 

However, the appeals court that holds that the lots were sold for housing and that this individual had a contractual destination deduce exactly the lack of development of individual electricity meters in accordance with standards constitutes a breach of the obligation to deliver and not a hidden defect (Case No. 3). 

SALE – Seller – Bonds – Issuance – Action in contract – Difference with the action in warranty against hidden defects 

 


SALES – Warranty – Latent defects – Definition
 

 

Precedents: A closer: Civil Division 3, 2000-03-15, Bulletin, III, No. 61, p. 42 (cassation), and cases cited. Codes cited: Civil Code 1641.

Advertisements

Posted on ខែ​មករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 2.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: