Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on February 15, 2000 Cassation.


Appeal No.: 98-12713
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Lemontey. Rapporteur: Mr. Bouscharain. Advocate General: M. Sainte-Rose. Counsel: CPS Celica, Blancpain and Soltner.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
Provides default against Mr. Grin;

The unique way, made its fourth branch:

Having regard to Articles L. 311-2, L. 311-8 and L. 311-10 of the Consumer Code;

Whereas disregard of the requirements of the above mentioned texts, even of public policy, may not be invoked at the request of the person that these provisions are intended to protect;

Whereas the company to dismiss Cofica its claim against Mr Grine which she had given a vehicle rental with purchase option, which had ceased to perform its obligations after the theft, the Court of Appeal , before which he had not appeared, selected automatically that the evidence does not ensure the regularity of supply;

Expected that by thus determining the Court of Appeal violated the above documents;

FOR THESE REASONS, and without any need to rule on the remaining claims on appeal:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of September 26, 1997, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Versailles 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 Versailles, differently composed.



Publication: Bulletin 2000 I No. 49 p. 34
Legal Week, 2001-02-14, No. 7 / 8 p. 379, note O. TASTE.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Versailles 1997-09-26 precedent: A CLOSER: Civil Division 1, 1992-01-21, Bulletin 1992, I, No. 22 (1), p. 14 (rejection: Decision No. 1), Commercial Division, 1995-05-03, Bulletin 1995, IV, No. 128, p. 115 (Supreme), and the case cited.

 

Supreme Court
Commercial Division

Public hearing on May 3, 1995 Cassation.


Appeal No.: 93-12256
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Bézard. Rapporteur: Mr. Dumas. Attorney General: Mr Raynaud. Counsel: Mr. Boulle.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
The first plea:
 

Having regard to Articles 1907, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code and 4 of the Act of December 28, 1966;

Whereas, as the Court criticized that, July 31, 1989, Credit Commercial de France (CCF) has closed the current account in his books, since September 23, 1981, on behalf of Mr. Amouyal, he then assigned it to pay the outstanding balance of this account, that the defendant did not appear at trial or on appeal;

Whereas, in deciding that the claim of the CCF “shall be the outstanding balance due account of all debit transactions other than premiums and interest, plus interest at the legal rate on the amounts involved in these operations flow”, the Judge approves first stop, before which Mr. Amouyal did not appear to have raised the statutory plea that the RTC could not justify a written stipulation of the rate of interest demanded;

Expected that by thus determining, while the public policy provisions of Article 4 of the Act of December 28, 1966 was issued solely in the interest of the borrower, their ignorance is punishable by disqualification on the clause provision of the contractual interest, which results in particular, the lack of validity of such a clause could be invoked against the CCF at the request of Mr. Amouyal, the Court of Appeal violated the texts referred to above;

FOR THESE REASONS, and without any need to rule on the second ground:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of June 19, 1992, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Paris shall, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before said stop, and to be granted, the returns before the Court of Appeal of Orleans.



Publication: Bulletin No. IV 1995 p. 128 115
DALLOZ, 1997-03-06, No. 10, p. 124, note F. EUDI.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1992-06-19 precedent: A CLOSER: Commercial Division, 1994-03-29, Bulletin 1994, IV, No. 134, p. 104 (Supreme), and the case cited.

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on November 20, 1985 Cassation


Appeal No.: 84-13353
Published in the Bulletin Pdt. Mr. Rowan’s Monégier Rapp. Ms. Gie Av.Gén. Mr. Ortolland Av Applicant: Mr Jacoupy Av Respondent: Ms. White

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
WHEREAS JUDGE MAY PROVIDED TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION, consider, among the elements of the debate FACT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIMS AND APPLY THE RULE OF LAW APPROPRIATE
WHEREAS, UNDER ATTACK OFF (PARIS, March 26, 1984) BY ACT 6 January 1978, Mr. GOUGEROT ACQUIRED FOR THE PRICE OF 670,000 FRANCS THE BENEFIT OF A PROMISE OF SALE OF LAND GRANTED JATA by the spouses;
WHICH THEY HAVE THE October 13, 1978, IS A SUMMATION OF MAKING M. GOUGEROT THE PROMISE October 25, 1978,
THAT, taking advantage of what Mr. GOUGEROT have not paid THAT DATE PRICE SALES AND IT WAS BOUND BY THE HUSBAND JATA argued that the promise was VOID,
THAT ON ASSIGNMENT M. GOUGEROT, they were sentenced to regulate SALE BY A JUDGEMENT CALLS THEY,
AS Mr. GOUGEROT A PRODUCT AT ISSUE CALL an instrument signed AFTER JUDGEMENT AND DESCRIBED TRANSACTION, by which the spouses JATA irrevocably committed under “penalty payment” of 2,000 francs per day of delay to regulate sale for a PRICES IN VIEW OF THE DAMAGE SUFFERED BY M. ​​GOUGEROT BECAUSE of their actions, was set at 600,000 francs and allowed Mr. GOUGEROT USE water pipes through their FUND,
WHEREAS FOR THAT THE PARTIES HAD SAY compromise and ACCORDINGLY, THE HUSBAND WILL JATA regulating the sale provided to Mr. GOUGEROT for a price of 600,000 francs, THE COURT OF APPEAL, AFTER FINDING THAT THE SPOUSE JATA PRODUCE A CERTIFICATE THAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE TRANSACTION was provoked by FEAR THAT THEY WERE INSPIRED threats made ​​by Mr. GOUGEROT, noting that the JATA HUSBAND does not claim to Rescind THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF FRAUD OR VIOLENCE AND ONLY IF prove such lack of consent, SHE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO THE MEETING OF MOTION
THAT ANSWER AND WHEN IT WAS TO DETERMINE THE DUTIES OF HUSBAND JATA, BE BASED ON FACTS RESULTING FROM PIECE PRODUCED TO BUSINESS, THE COURT OF APPEAL FAILED THE SCOPE ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS MENTIONED ABOVE
FOR THESE REASONS: quashed, in its entirety, without RULE ON THE FIRST AND THIRD MEANS, the Judgement of 26 MARS 1984, BETWEEN THE PARTIES BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PARIS,
AWARDS, THEREFORE, THE CAUSE AND THE PARTIES IN THE STATE AS THEY WERE BEFORE AND SAID JUDGEMENT TO BE DONE RIGHT TO REFER TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ORLEANS, THIS SPECIAL DESIGNATED BY TAKING THE DELIBERATION ROOM OF THE COUNCIL;



Publication: Bulletin No. 1985 III p. 153 116
The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, Room 2 A, 1984-03-26
titrations and summarized CIVIL PROCEDURE – Elements of the debate – facts not submitted – Made in the case. The court may, on condition of observing the principle of contradiction, consider, among the elements of the debate the facts that the parties have not specifically cited in support of their claim and apply the appropriate rule of law. As a result, incurs the cassation off to see who the parties to an agreement to sell and have traded accordingly to condemn the sellers to regulate the sale, point out that if they produce a statement that the signing of the transaction was was caused by the fear that they had inspired the threats made ​​by the beneficiary of the promise, the sellers did not claim to rescind this agreement for fraud or violence and that, assuming such a defect of consent established, there was no power of their address automatically. CASSATION * – Medium – Ignorance of the terms of the case – facts of the case – facts not submitted by the parties. * CIVIL PROCEDURE – Defence rights – Medium – Medium raised office – Preliminary observations of the parties – Sale – Nullity – Violence. * SALE – Nullity – Violence – Middle Office raised – Conditions. precedent: A closer: Supreme Court, Civil Division 1, 1984 1984-11-20 Bulletin No. I p. 315 266 (Rejection) and cases cited.

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 21.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: