RTDCiv. 1987.750 obs. Mestre

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on December 16, 1986 Rejection.

Appeal No.: 85-11396
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr Fabre Rapporteur: Camille Bernard Advocate General: M. Charbonnier Lawyers: MM. Ravanel and Boulloche.

The unique way:

Whereas Mr. Klein and Ms. Schoch acquaintance, in August 1977, following an ad of it which, with a car, offered to accompany an elderly single person or a holiday, that Mr. Schoch regulated fuel prices and food consumption or taken together, the car has had several failures, he suggested to Ms. Klein to buy a new one by presenting him with this purpose a sum of 35,000 francs; only after a couple of walks in the new car, the two people are confused, that Ms. Klein refused to refund the sum of 35,000 francs, was assigned March 8, 1978 by M. Schoch, that the stop the attack was ordered to pay the sum of 30,000 francs;

Whereas Mrs. Klein complains that the Court of Appeal have so held, the main reason that the obligation to Mr. Schoch had become unjust, while the existence of the cause must be determined at the time of formation the contract, so that section 1131 of the Civil Code has been violated;

But whereas s years ignoring the cause, necessary element in the formation of the contract, must exist at the time of the formation of the latter, the Court of Appeals correct in holding that the failure by Ms. Klein’s obligation to provide justification for the successive application of Mr. Schoch recovery of a portion of the amount it had paid pursuant to its correlative and reciprocal commitment , from which it follows that the appeal is unfounded;


DISMISSES the appeal

Publication: Bulletin 1986 I No. 301 p. 287 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Colmar, 1984-01-20


Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 31.


%d bloggers like this: