Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on February 5, 2002 Rejection.

Appeal No.: 00-12671
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Renard-Payen, acting senior advisor. . Rapporteur: Mr. Sempere. Advocate General: M. Sainte-Rose. Lawyers: CPS Piwnica and Molina, M. Foussard.

Whereas MM. P., M, D and T. acquired a mare by Mr. C sold during a race called “to demand” delivery after they knew the animal was pregnant and have assigned their vendor for annulment of sale and payment of damages ;
The first plea in its three branches:

Whereas Mr C complains that the judgment (Paris, December 10, 1999) have acceded to their demands then, in a way:

1 that the pregnancy status of the filly was a latent defect;

2 ° in the sale to the buyers accept a claim that opposes random errors on a substantial quality of the thing sold;

3 that the appellate court to consider whether abstained because of the peculiarity of the sales organization to call for information given by the seller to the buyer on the status of the mare was pregnant not sufficient to exclude the cancellation of the sale;

But given that the first appellate court noted that the buyers were aware of the gestation of the mare after the sale and that they had intended to purchase a filly racing and not breeding a mare, she was able to deduce that their mistake had worn the day of the sale, the essential qualities of the animal sold , then the sale to claim involving the acquisition of a horse just after the running of a race does not preclude an action in warranty defect of consent, the Court of Appeal finally conducting research alleged omitted noted that the information on the state of the filly had been given by the seller after the sale and that he had committed a fraud by concealment by failing to inform potential buyers of the condition of his horse before the sale, the average can therefore be allowed in any of its branches;

The second plea in its three branches:

Whereas it is even alleged to have ordered the arrest of Mr C to pay the purchasers the sum of 50,000 francs in damages, then, by type:

1st, that the Court of Appeal found that the seller had informed the purchaser that the mare was protruding just before the claiming race;

2 ° that the Court of Appeal failed to consider the fact that it was customary to breed a mare to stabilize his character and make better use in the race;

3 ° it has not identified the nature and extent of injury suffered by the purchasers;

But whereas the first that a Court of Appeal noted that information on the projection and therefore the pregnancy possible that the seller relied to rebut the contention of error was given after the purchase of the filly, then the appellate court was not required to respond to the argument relating to the use to breed a mare to improve his character, that at last she enjoyed sovereign the amount of damages which it has the existence justified by the assessment she has made, without being required to specify the various elements , that the plea is unfounded in all its branches;

For these reasons:

Dismiss the appeal.

Publication: Bulletin 2002 I No. 38 p. 31 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1999-12-10


Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 5.


%d bloggers like this: