Supreme Court
Commercial Division

Public hearing on January 7, 1981 RELEASE


Appeal No.: 79-13499
Published in the Bulletin Pdt Vienna M. M. Rpr Bargain Av.Gén. Mr. Cochard Av Applicant: Mr Copper-Royer Ave Defendant: M. Labbé

FRENCH REPUBLIC


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE


On the sole ground: It follows from the wording of the judgment ATTACK (PARIS, April 27, 1979) BY ACT OF 10 JUNE 1975, THE EAGLE DISTRIBUTION (THE EAGLE COMPANY) is committed to BUY FOR THREE YEARS SERVICE OIL COMPANY COMASE (COMASE COMPANY), A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUEL, THAT CLAUSE PROVIDED THE ACT: This Agreement comes into force only upon signature by the authorized representative of the COMASE COMPANY WHICH PROVIDES THAT END OF A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS FROM THE CUSTOMER’S SIGNATURE. After this time, THE PARTIES WILL FREE OF ENGAGEMENT;
WHEREAS IT IS ALLEGED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL TO HAVE ORDERED THE COMPANY THE EAGLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO THE COMPANY COMASE for damages IT CAUSE INJURY TO THE TERMINATION OF THAT COMPANY THE EAGLE OF THE AGREEMENT ABOVE IN MIND THAT THE COMPANY HAD AGREED COMASE IT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THEN, AS THE APPEAL THAT ONE WHO WANTS THE EXECUTION OF AN OBLIGATION TO THE PROVING THAT THE COMPANY COMASE had to prove that it had indicated its ACCEPTANCE TO THE EAGLE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEFORE July 10, 1975, THAT BASED ITS DECISION ON THE ONLY Considering that, PAID TO BUSINESS LETTER COMASE COMPANY, DATED July 3, 1975, THE COMPANY THE EAGLE DISTRIBUTING IT COULD NOT BE REACHED AFTER July 10, the Court of Appeal reversed the burden of proof, that he belonged to THE ONLY COMPANY COMASE TO PROVE THAT THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE AND NOT THE COMPANY THE EAGLE DISTRIBUTION OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, THAT DOES NOT LOOK FURTHER IF THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED BEFORE 10 JULY TO THE COMPANY THE COURT DECISION OF PRIVATE LEGAL BASIS,
BUT SINCE THE ABSENCE OF THE CONTRARY, THE ACT OF 10 JUIN 1975 was destined to be PERFECT, NOT BY THE RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY THE EAGLE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMASE COMPANY, BUT THE ISSUE BY IT IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE MEDIUM, WHICH SUPPORTS THE CONTRARY, is unfounded;
FOR THESE REASONS: DISMISSES the appeal against the Judgement of 27 April 1979 BY THE COURT CALL OF PARIS.



Publication: Bulletin of Judgments Supreme Court Commercial Division N. 14
Quarterly Review of Civil Law, 1981, p. 849, Note Fr CHABAS (1p)
Contested decision: Paris Court of Appeal (Room 25 B) 1979-04-27

 

Advertisements

Posted on ខែ​មករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 35.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: