Subject .- .- Determination lease maintenance of future benefits .- Price Fixing .- .- .- Abuse Sanction .-

Where an agreement provides for subsequent contracts, the indeterminacy of the price of these contracts does not affect the original agreement, unless specific legal validity of it, abuse in the pricing does not result to termination or compensation.

 Translations into English Determination of the price in commercial contracts: IGL and UTL

Stop 1:

THE COURT

The first plea, made ​​its first branch  :

Having regard to Articles 1709 and 1710, all items 1134 and 1135 of the Civil Code;

Whereas when an agreement provides for subsequent contracts, the indeterminacy of the price of these contracts does not affect the original agreement, except special legal provisions, the validity of it, abuse in the pricing not giving rise to termination or compensation;

Whereas according to the judgment (Rennes, February 13, 1991) and July 5, 1981, the company has entered Sumaco Compagnie Atlantic telephone (CAT) a lease of a telephone interview for a fee indexed the agreement stipulating that all changes requested by the Administration or the subscriber would be effected at the expense of the latter according to the rate in effect reporting that the company terminate the contract in 1986 due to lack of payment of the fee and the compensation claimed under contract, the Sumaco sought the annulment of the agreement for indeterminacy of prices;

Whereas to cancel the contract, the decision holds that the customer was contractually obliged to apply only to the company for any changes in the installation and the price of the inevitable revisions of this facility and for which the Sumaco was obliged to apply to the CAT, was not determined and depended on the will of the latter, as the price of any supplements;

That in so ruling, the appeals court violated the above documents;

FOR THESE REASONS,

and without any need to rule on the other means:

Quashed,

in all its provisions, the decision of February 13, 1991, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Rennes; shall, 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.

Published: 1995 AP Bulletin No. 7 p. 13
contracts, competition, consumption, 1996, No. 1, p. 1 Note L. Leveneur. Legal Week, Edition notary and real estate, 1996, No. 13, p. 493, note D. Boulanger. Business Dalloz, 1996, No. 1, p. 3, note A. Laude. Banking and Exchange, 1996, No. 53, p. 2, note J. Stoufflet. Journal of Business Law jurisprudence Francis Lefebvre, 1996, No. 1, p. 3, note Frisian MA-Roche. Quarterly Review of Commercial and Economic Law, 1996-06, No. 2, p. 179, note F. Pollaud-Dulian and A. Ronzano. Legal Week, Enterprise Edition, 1996-11-14, No. 46, Supplement No. 5, p. 38, note M. BANDRAC. Legal Week, 1996-09-11, No. 37, p. 333, note L. FINEL.

Stop 2:

THE COURT

The unique way, made ​​its first branch  :

Having regard to Articles 1709 and 1710 all the articles 1134 and 1135 of the Civil Code;

Whereas when an agreement provides for subsequent contracts, the indeterminacy of the price of these contracts does not affect the original agreement, except special legal provisions, the validity of it, abuse in the pricing not giving rise to termination or compensation;

Whereas, as the Court referred, that on 15 November 1982, Bechtel France (Bechtel) agreed with the French Compagnie phone (Cofratel company), for a period of 15 years, a convention known as “location -interview “on the telephone from his office, that on 28 June 1984, Bechtel informed the company Cofratel the closure of part of its premises and, consequently, the end of the contract that the Cofratel company Bechtel sued the company in payment of the amount of the penalty clause provided in the event of early termination of the agreement and that the company Bechtel has stood by invoking the nullity of the contract for indeterminacy of the price;

Whereas, for declaration of nullity, the decision notes that if “the obligation to use the company Cofratel applies only to changes intrinsic to the installation and does not prevent the company Bechtel to turn to other suppliers for the purchase and use of complementary or similar device, the fact remains that any changes to the installation can be performed by the company Cofratel benefiting in this regard a clause exclusive “;

That in so ruling, the appeals court violated the above documents;

FOR THESE REASONS: quashed,

in all its provisions, the ruling March 26, 1991, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Paris shall, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before the judgment and to be granted, the returns to the Paris Court of Appeal otherwise composed.

 

Stop 1:

SSA. PLEN. 1st December 1995 CASSATION

No. 91-15578 CA .- Rennes, February 13, 1991 .- Atlantic Telephone Company c / society Sumaco

Stop 2:

SSA. PLEN. 1st December 1995 CASSATION

No. 91-15999 CA .- Paris, March 26, 1991 .- Atlantic Telephone Company c / Bechtel France

Mr. Drai, P. Pt – Ms. Fossereau, Rap (including excerpts from the note reproduced below) .- M. Jéol, P. Gen Av (including conclusions reproduced below) .- CPS Boré and Xavier (Case No. 1), the SCP Defrénois and Levis, and the CPS Rouvière Boutet (Case No. 2)

Contracts and obligations

Subject .- .- .- Price Determination of the Civil Code Article 1129 .- Application (no) .-

Article 1129 Civil Code is not applicable to the determination of price abuse in fixing it does not give rise to termination or compensation.

THE COURT

On the sole ground, taken in its two branches  :

Whereas, according to the order confirming referred (Rennes, February 11, 1993), in order to operate a hotel, Le Montparnasse, August 27, 1987, leased to the company Armorican Telecommunications Company , to human society which is GST-Alcatel Britain (Alcatel), a telephone system for a period of 10 years, until January 1990, the company sold the Montparnasse its business and the transferee would not take the telephone system, the Alcatel sued the company in Montparnasse The payment of the termination fee, under the contract;

Whereas The company blames the Montparnasse stop having rejected the plea of ​​nullity of the contract and amendments occurred, taken from the indeterminacy of the price of some of the “benefits” set, then, in a way, one hand, that is neither determined nor determinable, as defined in section 1129 of the Civil Code, the price fixing which makes use of under-specified parameters, in this case, Article 2 of the Convention of 27 August 1987 provides that any extension of an initial installation will be an added value of the rental fee, determined by reference to the rise in prices at the supplier since the last fixation “used base “and that depending on the price index contract or, if the application of the index would be temporarily suspended in the form of substitution or the coefficient of increase stopped by legal or regulatory authority public, provided that these variations may be index-both applied to hardware installation assistant rented or supplied and labor if, as a result of “any circumstances”, the increase occurred in the provider Materials may not be properly established and that, therefore, by merely stating that the parameters defined and could be controlled by the parties to conclude that the importance of the increased charge related to the initial extensions of the installation was

fully determined, irrespective of whether, for its obscurity and complexity, the calculation formula in the contract did not put the tenant, held by an exclusivity clause in the impossibility of knowing the rate of increase, the court Appeal private decision of any legal basis under the abovementioned text, and then, on the other hand, is needed for the validity of the contract, that portion of the object to the obligation that comes can be determined, it is undisputed in this case, the tenant was required to call the landlord for any extension which commissioning was subject, under Article 3 in fine of contract August 27, 1987, payment of the fee claimed by the installer that therefore, by failing to consider whether, at the conclusion of the amendments provided in case of modification or extension of the initial installation, prices could be freely discussed and agreed by the parties, the appellate court’s decision deprived of any legal basis under Article 1129 of the Civil Code;

But given that section 1129 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the determination of prices and the Court of Appeal has not received a request for termination or compensation for abuses in pricing, decision is legally justified;

FOR THESE REASONS: DISMISSES the appeal

SSA. PLEN. RELEASE December 1, 1995

No. 93-13688 CA .- Rennes, February 11, 1993 .- The Society Montparnasse c / GST-company Alcatel Britain

Mr. Drai, P. Pt – Ms. Fossereau, Rap (including excerpts from the note reproduced below) .- M. Jéol, P. Gen Av (including conclusions reproduced below) .- CPA Richard and Mandelkern, CPA Boré and Xavier, Av –

 

Subject .- .- Necessity Determination .- Scope Framework Convention .- .- .- .- Price Contracts subsequent fixation Abuse .- .- .- Sanction

The clause in a franchise agreement with reference to the rate prevailing on the date of supply orders to intervene does not affect the validity of contract, breach in the pricing does not give rise to termination or compensation.

THE COURT

The single plea in his first branch  :

Having regard to Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Civil Code;

Whereas the term of a franchise agreement with reference to the rate prevailing on the date of supply orders to intervene does not affect the validity of contract, breach in the pricing does not give rise to termination or compensation;

Whereas, according to the judgment, Mr. Gagnaire has a contract in which he became, for a period of five years, the franchisee of Mr. Vassal and pledged to use only products sold by it;

Whereas to cancel this contract, the decision notes that Article 5 of the Convention provides “that the products will be sold at the current rate at the date of registration of the order, this tariff is applied than the list price to all the franchisees, “it is in fact a scale and it follows that the pricing is at the discretion of the franchisor;

That in so ruling, the appeals court violated the above documents;

FOR THESE REASONS,

and without any need to rule on the second part of the plea:

Quashed,

in all its provisions, the decision of July 10, 1991, between the parties, the Court of Appeal in Chambéry, shall, accordingly, 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.

Mr. Drai, P. Pt – Ms. Fossereau, Rap (including excerpts from the note reproduced below) .- M. Jéol, P. Gen Av (including conclusions reproduced below) .- CPS Defrénois and Levis, M. Jacoupy, Av –

 

 

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 22.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: