Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on May 25, 1972 RELEASE


Appeal No.: 71-10663
Published in the Bulletin de Monts PDT RPR M. Granier AV.GEN. Mr. TUNCA Plaintiff AV. MM. Tetreau Defender NICOLAS

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
MEETING ON THE THREE WAYS: WHEREAS it is clear from STATEMENTS OF NURSING OFF ATTACK THAT FOLLOWING CONVENTIONS OF 23 AND 30 DECEMBER 1967 MARTIN-NALBURET GOT LADIES AND FOURNIER GERARD, A PROMISE OF SALE OF ALL SHARES THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY USED AS TALBOISE CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRTH;
 

 


BY ACT of 9 November 1967, Lady Gerard, ACTING AS OWNER OF THE BUILDING, WAS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY OUT ALL THE COMPANY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING IN PLACES, a medical and para-medical;
 

 


THE CLINICAL TALBOISE, established in 1947, is situated in a housing complex, in which individual owners are MADE IN 1959, a trade union;
 

 


That under the rule, is LIMIT THE EXERCISE OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS IS NOT ALL THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PEOPLE SUCH sanatorium, SANATORIUM ESTABLISHMENT AND RECEIVE FOR SICK OR convalescents AND ARE ONLY AUTHORIZED INSTITUTIONS OF ALL EXISTING REST: GUEST HOUSE, WORKS OF RETIREMENT, educational institutions, VILLAS AND HOUSES;
 

 


General rule SAID IN ADDITION TO BUILD OVER THE TENTH OF THE TOTAL AREA PROPERTIES;
 

 


WHEREAS IT IS SAID STOP COMPLAINS HAVE CANCELLED FOR LACK OF CONSENT, THE PROMISE OF SALE OF SHARES ABOVE, THEN, AS THE APPEAL THAT THE ONE HAND, MARTIN MALBURET had invoked the error and fraud AND THAT THE DECISION DOES NOT INDICATE WHICH OF THESE TWO DEFECTS IT IS BASED THAT THE OTHER HAND, THE COURT OF APPEAL TO DECIDE THIS CANCELLATION, THE VIEW THAT THE CLINIC WILL NOT WORK IN REGULAR CONDITIONS BECAUSE IT WAS IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF THE RULES OF OWNERSHIP, THE PROHIBITION OF ALL TRADE AND PROHIBITION TO BUILD OVER THE TENTH OF THE AREA, ALTHOUGH REGULATION RELIED SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREATION OF THE CLINIC, HAS STATUE FOR THE FUTURE AND THAT HAS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED INSTITUTIONS EXISTING ON THE DATE OF CREATION of the Trade Union and finally, THE JUDGES OF THE SECOND DEGREE leave unanswered CLAIMS TO THE CONFIRMATION OF JUDGEMENT FOR reasons given by the FIRST JUDGES;
 

 


IT IS FURTHER CHARGES THE COURT OF APPEAL TO HAVE ACTED LIKE SHE DID IT WHILE IN CONCLUSIONS unanswered, the sellers had recalled that the error is a cause of nullity THAT WHEN IT CONCERNS THE DETERMINANTS OF THE CONTRACT, AND CAN NOT CONFUSE THAT THE CAUSE OF AN OBLIGATION IS TO SAY THE PURPOSE OF EACH CONTRACTOR, THE DECISIVE RESULT OF ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE PERSONAL MOBILE JUDGE WILL NOT KNOW, AND, ABOVE ALL, it is clearly FOR BUYER, NOT HIS REAL MOBILE BUT AN EXPLANATION Designed retrospect, since it appears neither EXPLANATION IN THE SUMMONS OF 22 May 1968, OR IN THE DRAFT termination by agreement he had prepared on 27 May 1968;
 

 


FINALLY IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF OPERATIONS NOT CHARACTERIZED IN NO WAY THAT CAN BE A DOL;
 

 


WHEREAS BUT, FIRST, THAT THE JUDGEMENT STATEMENT IT IS DIFFICULT TO BREACH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMITMENT THAT TOOK THE LADY GERARD November 9, 1967, AS OWNER, AND THAT IT HAS TAKEN THE 23 DECEMBER as a partner, OWNER OF ALMOST ALL PARTS OF THE COMPANY TALBOISE CLINICAL;
 

 


THAT THE COMPANY IS DEFINED AS A PROMISE APPLICATION FOR OPERATION OF A HOME HEALTH, MEDICAL AND CLINICAL-SURGICAL, LAST ONLY, DELIVERY, IN THESE CONDITIONS, MARTIN-MALBURET IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT he had not given his consent if he had known, NOT ONLY THAT PLANS EXPANSION AND EXTENSION CLINIC were impractical, BUT EVEN THE LEGALITY OF OPERATION on present trends could be challenged;
 

 


WHEREAS, these reasons alone, JUDGES OF SECOND DEGREE HAVE IN THE SEARCH FOR PARTIES, THE SOVEREIGN Appreciates MEANING AND SCOPE OF ACTS RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER, characterized the lack of consent ERROR BASED ON THE DETERMINANTS OF THE CONVENTION
 

 


THEY HAVE THEREFORE DECIDED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEY HAD found were likely to entail the nullity of the agreements at issue;
 

 


FINALLY, THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE SUBMISSION BY MARTIN-MALBURET BEFORE THE FIRST JUDGES AND REJECTED BY THEM ON THE CLAUSE, since it declaring the nullity of CONTRACT ERROR;
 

 


IT FOLLOWS THAT NO WHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF CRITICAL can not be accepted;
 

 


FOR THESE REASONS: DISMISSES the appeal against the Judgement of December 14, 1970, BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PARIS.
 

 



Publication: Supreme Court stops Civil Division 3 N. P. 330 238
Note J. Ghestin JCP 1972 II n. 17 249 (2p)
Contested decision: Appeal Court PARIS 1970-12-14

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 8.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: