Civ I, July 3, 1996, Bull No. 287, No. 94-13-239

Whereas, according to the judgment (Nancy, Oct. 26, 1993) that in January 1986, Mr. Meline, medical radiologist, and one of his colleagues, who held together in a cabinet at Verdun and managed within the Clinique Saint Joseph, have joined forces with Mr. Twelve, and that, in a letter dated September 30, 1988, Mr. Donne sought a reduction in its “entry fee”, that in June 1989, Mr. Meline has approved in principle a reduction, but felt that the amount thereof to be negotiated, and that, subsequently, after removal of the third partner, MM. Give Meline and separated, and Mr. Donne assigned liquidation rights of the parties;

On the sole ground of the main appeal, taken in its various branches

 Whereas Mr. Twelve complains that the decision to have dismissed his claim for a reduction in the transfer price, then, in a way, as a result of specific findings of the above that, under an agreement between the two doctors, Dr. Meline pledged to repay a portion of his colleague shares overestimated, it is also clear from the above that Mr. Meline has refused to execute the agreement since it offered no restitution and has not made ​​any further act for the performance of its obligations, and that by refusing to sanction the recalcitrant behavior of the other party on the sole ground that it was not ineffective able to judge to replace the parties, the Court of Appeal violated by refusing to apply Articles 1134 and 1147 of the Civil Code as “the other, the error value is a cause of nullity when it is the result of an error on the essential qualities that in positing that the error value is not a vice of consent may result in cancellation or revision of the contract without notice if Mr. Twelve had known the real situation of the practice, it would have contracted a loan of 3 million francs because he could not repay, the appellate court violated Article 1110 of the Civil Code, while Finally, any conflict of motives is equivalent to an absence of reasons, the appeals court said the one hand that the decline in sales can only be explained by a loss of customers due to the pursuit of Social Security, based on over-pricing practiced by M. Meline and former partner, and also that the evidence would not be over-pricing reported that these were the cause of the decline in sales, so that the Court of Appeal violated Article 455 of the new Code of Civil Procedure  ;

 But whereas the Court of Appeal, which was not contradicted, was exactly found that the recognition in principle of a price reduction coupled with the expression of disagreement over the amount of any reimbursement was not a commitment to pay, lack of determination of the purpose of the engagement, and that the error on the value of which is the subject of the contract is not a vice of consent may result in cancellation or revision of the contract  , that the plea is unfounded;

 And the unique way of appeal, taken in its two branches:

 Whereas Mr. Meline accused stopped to have excluded from the mission of experts appointed to evaluate the assets existing at 1 January 1990 between Mr. Twelve and Meline, the consideration of the heritage value of the customers  of the “association” between doctors, divided between the office and clinic locations joint exercise of their profession before that date;                             I

But whereas the patients enjoying absolute freedom to choose their doctor, they are customers, attached exclusively as precarious a person to the practitioner, is out of business, and can be an agreement, that the plea is therefore ineffective in its two branches;

 

FOR THESE REASONS

 

Dismiss the appeals and principal j incident.

Advertisements

Posted on ខែ​មករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 6.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: