Com, November 26, 1996, Bull No. 282, No. 94-1584

 On the sole ground, taken in its four branches

 Whereas, according to the judgment (Paris, March 18, 1994), that Mr. Locatelli a, through the brokerage firm Hauvette Goy, now Cofibourse, made MATIF operations, these operations having settled by losses, the brokerage firm has assigned the payment of the outstanding balance of his account;

 Whereas Mr. Locatelli complains that the decision of the sentence pronounced against him payment, then, according to the appeal, first, that the contractual liability of the brokerage firm is involved since it infringed obligation to cover the general rules established by the board of the futures market in which the contract refers specifically to open an account, by refusing to impose the responsibility of society Goy Hauvette against Mr. Locatelli because of all transactions on his account, although the account balance would have become debtor, however, that after the brokerage firm did not call daily margins before May 15, 1990, in violation of its contractual obligations, the Court of Appeal did not draw the consequences of its own findings, thereby violating section 1147 of the Civil Code, then, secondly, that in its conclusions, he argued that Locatelli had signed a contract for five positions only, as a result, the positions on the market on its behalf by the company Hauvette Goy, who, without requiring immediate payment of margins debtor, has been able to otherwise, strengthened its position of 19 to 31 contracts, without his ordered were perfectly illegal and inconsistent with the laws governing the internal market, that does not meet these heads of claim which established irrefutably ‘actions outside the mandate the brokerage firm the Court of Appeal violated Article 455 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, so also in case of dispute, it is for the brokerage firm of prey it has fulfilled its obligation to provide information to the client of risks involved in speculative trading on futures markets, stating that Mr. Locatelli not pay no record of the debates that the company Hauvetxe Goy had failed in its obligation to information did not address his contract notes between February 28, 1990 and March 16, 1990, the Court of Appeal reversed the burden of proof, in violation of Article 1315 of the Civil Code, and then, finally, that the duty be charged a brokerage firm to inform his client of the risks involved in speculative operations. the futures markets is a measure of market protection and client which aims to prevent it from passing orders too risky for him after seeing the failure by the company Goy Hauvette his duty information as of March 16, 1990, while the debit balance of his account at that date amounted to more than 80,000 francs and has accelerated the development of a rapid and uncontrolled. to flow more and more substantial, the Court of Appeal could then blame Mr. Locatelli to have continued to place orders from that date and limit, after division of responsibility, his right to compensation for damages , in so ruling the Court of Appeal has not reached the legal consequences of its findings, thereby violating section 1147 of the Civil Code;

 But wait, first, that after noting that Mr. Locatelli had control operations MATIE and was aware of what they were high risk, which can result in significant losses and fast, the Court of Appeal have retained the brokerage firm, which had not breached its duty of information to his client, had not incurred liability by not calling daily margins  ;

 Whereas, secondly, that to dismiss the claim of Mr. Locatelli on the failure to issue contract note from the brokerage firm for a certain period, the decision is not limited noted the lack of production of any document to that effect, but also notes that the applicant was informed of the status of his account, and had continued after this time his orders with regard to actual balances of its accounts and that the Court of Appeal has, therefore, not reverse the burden of proof, but appreciated the scope of the various facts discussed in front of her;

 Whereas, thirdly, that the Court of Appeal accepted that Mr. Locatelli was the author of all operational orders recorded on its behalf; thus, she said, citing the conclusions of the initiatives brokerage firm on behalf of

FINALLY, in holding that, in the finals, Mr. Locatelli has engaged in particularly hazardous operations, compounding continuously flow from his account, the appellate court, thus, shows the reckless behavior, holding that he has personally liable, at least partially, the Court of Appeal reached the legal consequences. its findings;

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

 FOR THESE REASONS

Dismiss the appeal.

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 39.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវបានបិទ។

%d bloggers like this: