Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on July 3, 1996 Rejection.


Appeal No.: 94-14800
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Gregory, senior adviser acting. . Rapporteur: Mr. Ancel. General Counsel: Ms. Le Foyer de Costil. Lawyers: CPS Urtin-Petit-Rousseau and Van Troeyen, CPA Guiguet Bachellier and Potier de la Varde.

FRENCH REPUBLIC


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE


On the sole ground, taken in its two branches:

Whereas society DPM complains that the judgment (Grenoble, March 17, 1994) to be canceled for failure to cause the contract to create a “video store point” and cassette rental agreement with Mr. and Ms. Piller, holding that the cause, mobile decisive engagement of the latter was broadcast some tapes to their customers, and that this operation was doomed to failure in a town of 1314 inhabitants, while on the one hand, in a bilateral contract the cause of the obligation of a party is the obligation of the other party, and that in this case the cause of the commitment of spouses Miller was putting them with videotapes, and, secondly, the reasons can not be the determining cause of the contract only if not identified by the Court of Appeal that these motifs entered the scope of the contract;

But having waited noted that with respect to the rental of video cassettes to operate a business, the contract according to the scheme intended by the parties was impossible, the Court of Appeal has exactly inferred that the contract was without cause, then what was found and the absence of any actual consideration for the obligation to pay the rent tapes, purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Piller in the creation of the Convention a “point video store”;

And that the decision is legally justified;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Dismiss the appeal.



Publication: Bulletin 1996 I No. 286 p. 200


Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Grenoble, 1994-03-17
precedent: A CLOSER: Civil Division 1, 1988-05-25, Bulletin 1988, I, No. 149 (2), p. 102 (rejection) Commercial Division, 1988-12-06, Bulletin 1988, IV, No. 334, p. 225 (cassation), and cases cited; Civil Division 1, 1989-07-12, Bulletin 1989, I, No. 293, p. 194 (rejection) Civil Division 3, 1993-03-03, Bulletin 1993, III, No. 28, p. 18 (rejection), Civil Division 1, 1994-06-15, Bulletin 1994, I, No. 215, p. 157 (rejection).


Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on December 19, 1995 Cassation.


Appeal No.: 94-11783
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Lemontey. Rapporteur: Mr. Renard-Payen. Attorney General: Mr. Roehrich. Lawyers: CPS Lyon-Caen, Fabiani and Thiriez, CPA Coutard and Mayer.

FRENCH REPUBLIC


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE


The first plea in its two branches:

Whereas, according to the judgment, the Syndicate of single-purpose (SIVU) of Nistos, was established in 1988 to build the facilities needed to create a stadium-country skiing, as part a tourist stay unit (TSU) designed to develop tourism in the region that, by deed dated 8 March 1989, SIVU concluded with the Union of mountains and forests Nistos (the union) a lease construction of a 25-year on a plot of 2000 m2 within the range suitable for forestry and pastoral run by him and intended to build a lodge of 410 m2, at a rent an annual fair, the residual value of the building was set at 500,000 francs at the end of the lease, that the union was committed to the expiration of the lease, not to change the allocation of premises and to ensure the use to the manager of ski stadium with a new agreement to go with it, the union has assigned SIVU annulment of the lease before the High Court of Tarbes;

Whereas the SIVU complains that the judgment’s dismissal of the objection to jurisdiction of the courts of the judiciary raised by him, then, firstly, as a result of the lease dispute that to an end, the lessor, become full owner of all buildings constructed by the lessee on the leased land, will have to commit not to change their assignment, including the stage manager to ensure cross-country use premises necessary for the continuation of this activity, that this clause imposed solely by the desire to ensure the sustainability of the public interest, because obviously foreign to the concerns of private individuals, has an exorbitant nature of the law giving the agreements at issue the nature of an administrative contract within the jurisdiction of administrative courts, in deciding to the contrary, the Court of Appeal violated the law of 16-24 August 1790 and the Decree of 16 Fructidor Year III, then of second, that, to achieve the mission of public service entrusted to him, the Syndicate of single-purpose, public institution, could implement a procedure for expropriation that, therefore, the disputed contract is a modality performance of public service and has an administrative nature, that is crucial as it did, the Court of Appeal has again violated the law of 16-24 August 1790 and the Decree of 16 Fructidor Year III;

But whereas the lower courts have found exactly the one hand, that the mere fact of imposing a new lease with the manager of the ski stadium, the ownership of the building built accruing to the lessor does not in itself a clause the ordinary law, on the other hand, the only provision of land to build the facilities needed to operate the ski stadium could not be equated with the actual performance of the public service, rightly deduced that the lease issue of private law;

Hence it follows that the plea is unfounded in all of its two branches;

But on the second plea:

Having regard to Article 1131 of the Civil Code;

Whereas, to cancel the building lease agreement between the SIVU and the union, the judgment states that the consideration of this lease, the lessor, a property devalued indefinitely, since, at the lease expires, it will become owner of a building without holding the powers of enjoyment and disposition that characterize the property right, since it will once again rent the premises manager in place;

By so holding, while the result of the findings of trial judges that the union, which had put at the disposal of land without SIVU great market value obtained at the end of lease ownership of the buildings made, which was a serious consideration, to the extent not precluded by the lessor to require a substantial rent the lessee at the conclusion of a subsequent lease, the Court of Appeal did not legally justified its decision with regard to the abovementioned text ;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of November 24, 1993, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Pau; 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 Bordeaux.



Publication: Bulletin 1995 I No. 481 p. 333 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Pau, 1993-11-24 titrations

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 33.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: