Supreme Court
Commercial Division

Public hearing on April 29, 2002 Rejection.

Appeal No.: 00-10708
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Dumas. Rapporteur: Ms. Vigneron. Attorney General: Mr. Lafortune. Lawyers: CPS Lyon-Caen, Fabiani and Thiriez, CPA Vier and Bartholomew.


Whereas, according to the judgment (Poitiers, November 3, 1999) and by act of October 28, 1995, Mr. Picq concluded with husband Mancell a contract of affreightment “demise” of his ship “Shipmate” and that M . Picq sued Mr Mancell annulment of the contract for error on the scope of its commitments, the court granted that request, Mr. Mancell has appealed the ruling, that Mrs. Mancell intervened in the proceeding;

The first plea in its two branches:

Whereas Mr. Mancell, Ms. Chaigneau, divorced Mancell, M. Rambour acting as administrator of Mr. and Mr. Mancell Courret Guguen-acting as a representative of creditors of Mr. Mancell, blame the stop having canceled the charter contract for mistake, then, by type:

1 ° that merely highlight the unconscionable aspect of the agreement in question, and the abusive nature of some of its clauses, without showing that Mr. Picq, who was a practicing owner, had committed an error of law vitiating his consent, the Court of Appeal denied his decision as a legal basis under Articles 1110 and 1134 of the Civil Code;

2 ° the error is a cause of nullity to the extent that it is excusable that merely noted that Mr. Picq would have been under the control of Mr. Mancell psychological and there was little likely that he has given his consent if he himself had been assisted by a council staff, the Court of Appeal, which has not justified its decision to consider the quality of professional Picq M. made ​​no not excuse the error committed by him, deprived of legal basis for its decision under Articles 1110 and 1134 of the Civil Code;

But wait, first, that far from simply highlight the unconscionable aspect of the charter “bareboat” and the abusive nature of some of its clauses, the Court of Appeal, making the interpretation of the contract clause entitled “Term” that necessitated its ambiguous terms, held that the charterer could terminate the contract each year without Mr. Picq has the same opportunity, in the state of that enjoyed by it followed that the term of the contract depended on the will of the charterer alone, the Court of Appeal was entitled to find that the charter contract was contrary to Article 10 of the Act of June 18, 1966, and Mr. Picq had given his consent to the contract as a result of an error on a substantial part of its commitment;

Whereas, on the other hand, has retained sovereign aving Mr. Picq was under psychological dependence Mr Mancell, the appellate court could infer that the quality of professional M. Picq did not render inexcusable the error he had committed;

Hence it follows that the decision is legally justified, the means is established in any of its branches;

And the second way:



Whereas Mr. Mancell, Ms. Chaigneau, divorced Mancell, M. Rambour acting as administrator of Mr. and Mr. Mancell Courret Guguen-acting as a representative of creditors of Mr. Mancell also claim that the stop having said that the decision and stopping opposed Ms. Chaigneau, then, in a way, that the decision must be motivated, that merely noted that Ms. Chaigneau should be regarded as having been represented by her husband in first instance, without justifying this by saying any reason to justify it, the court of appeal did not meet the requirements of section 455 of the new Code of Civil Procedure;



But whereas the Court of Appeal based its decision in finding that Ms. Chaigneau whose divorce from Mr. Mancell was not published until June 17, 1999 or subsequently appealed the trial will be deemed to have been represented by its spouses in the first instance, that the plea is unfounded;



For these reasons:



Dismiss the appeal.


Publication: Bulletin No. IV 2002 p. 77 82 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Poitiers, 1999-11-03 titrations


Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 9.


%d bloggers like this: