Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on July 17, 1996 Cassation.

Appeal No.: 93-19432
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Beauvois. Rapporteur: Mr. Pronier. Attorney General: Mr. Lucas. Lawyers: CPS Lesourd and Baudin, CPA Defrénois and Levis.



The first plea:

Having regard to Article 1131 of the Civil Code;

Whereas the obligation, without cause or a false cause, or causes an illegal, can have no effect;

Whereas, according to the judgment (Paris, July 12, 1993), that, according to a deed dated July 11, 1989, the couple agreed to Saizou society Sepimo La Henin, represented by Jesel, a unilateral promise of sale for a mansion located on the courtyard, behind a building built in front of the street that the act specified that the recipient would own the day of signing the deed of sale and should support free Occupancy by promising until 1 October 1990, a lump sum of 5700 francs per day of delay is then due, and that, by act of July 10, 1989, referring to the act of July 11, buyers committed themselves to be reserved for spouses Saizou space in the building to be constructed after demolition of the mansion for the price of 2.8 million francs, or for non-completion of the building to sell them in local building on the street, with the same price, that according to an undated letter, Mr. Jesel pledged at the start of the spouses Saizou, an amount of 2.8 million francs in compensation for costs removal and loss of customers, that, according to a deed of September 28, 1989, spouses Saizou sold the property to the real estate company 120, avenue du General Leclerc (SCI), which had replaced the company Sepimo The Henin, the act incorporating the terms of the promise regarding the release date of the premises and the penalty clause, but without reference to the Act of July 10, 1989 and undated letter, the husband Saizou s’ being held in places, SCI has assigned the eviction and payment of a sum in respect of the penalty clause, the spouses were assigned Saizou society Sepimo Henin in the forced intervention and called for the application of Act of July 10, 1989 and undated letter and the payment of damages, the company’s Sepimo Henin raised the invalidity of such acts;

Whereas, to declare null and void the act of July 10, 1989 and undated letter signed by Mr. Jesel, the decision notes that pay 2.8 million francs was provided for moving expenses and loss of customer, the moving expenses which are justified Saizou M. 8236 francs for the professional part and 6588 francs for the private party, it does not have suffered any loss of goodwill, but instead , he moved from September 9, 1991 “Villa Simone”, 85, avenue du General Leclerc, and experienced no interruption professional that documents produced by the spouses and Saizou are dwarfed by the amount of the compensation that was promised to them and that the obligation of paying such compensation is thus without cause serious and can have no effect;

That in so holding, while the existence of the cause of an obligation must be determined on the date it is purchased, the Court of Appeal, which was based on subsequent events, has violated the text referred to above;

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

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of July 12, 1993, 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 to the Court of Appeal of Versailles.

Publication: Bulletin No. 1996 III p. 193 124 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1993-07-12. precedent: A CLOSER: Commercial Division, 1987-06-30, Bulletin 1987, IV, No. 163, p. 122 (cassation), and cases cited.


Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 34.


%d bloggers like this: