V ° CAUSE

RTDCiv. 1996.606, pers. Mestre

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on February 7, 1996 Cassation


Appeal No.: 93-17873
titled Unreleased Chairman: Mr. BEAUVOIS

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:

On appeal by:

1 / Ms. Marie-Claude J

2 / Ms Geraldine M, d), for:

1 / Mr. P

2 / Ms. P, the defendants appeal;

The plaintiffs cite in support of their appeal, the sole ground of appeal annexed to this Order;

THE COURT, in the public hearing on January 4, 1996, attended by Mr. Beauvois, President, Di Marino, reporting judge, MM. Douvreleur, Aydalot, Boscheron, Toitot, Ms. Borra, M. Bourrelly, Ms. Stephan, M. Peyrat, counselors, MM. Chollet, Pronier, counselors referendum, Mr. Weber, General Counsel, Ms. Jacomy, Clerk of room;

On the report of Councillor Mrs. Di Marino, the observations of the SCP and Rouvière Boutet, lawyer Marie-Claude and Miss Geraldine Mazeau Mazeau, from Mr. Vuitton, lawyer husband of Pin, the findings of Weber, General Counsel and after deliberating in accordance with law;

The unique way:

Having regard to Article 1131 of Civil Code section 1601 together, paragraph 2 of this Code;

Whereas the obligation without cause or because of a false or unlawful basis, can have no effect;

Whereas, according to the judgment (Toulouse, January 21, 1992), the Referee, that al Mazeau Pin husband acquired a house, by private agreement stating that the transfer of ownership would take place after the signing the deed and that the sum of 100,000 francs paid by the buyers and recorded in the hands of the notary, would be forfeited to the vendors instead of a signature of the instrument on time, for any reason whatsoever ;

a warehouse a dependency of the house had collapsed, the M Co. decided to abandon the sale and the couple have assigned P for restitution of the amount paid;

Whereas, to reject the request, stop, having found that the choice of purchasers to abandon the sale is based, holds that the application of the clause allowing the sellers to keep the funds in the event of signing the instrument is subject to the completion of a simple fact which he states that his case is irrelevant since it is mentioned “for any reason whatsoever”;

That in so ruling the Court of Appeal violated the above documents;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of January 21, 1992, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Toulouse;

calls, 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 Bordeaux;

Pin husband condemns the expense and cost of performing the above;

That no grounds exist for compensation under Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure;

Directs that the diligence of the attorney-general at the Court of Cassation, the above will be sent to be transcribed in the records of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, alongside or following termination canceled;

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on February 7 thousand nine hundred ninety-six.

302



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Toulouse (1st room) 1992-01-21

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 28.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវបានបិទ។

%d bloggers like this: