Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on June 13, 2001 Cassation partial


Appeal No.: 99-18676
titled Unreleased Chairman: Mr. BEAUVOIS

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling: 

I – The appeal No. 99-18676 V formed by the printing company, limited liability company, headquartered 3, Pioneer went to Aeropostale, 31045 Toulouse, 

to quash a decision of June 8, 1999 by the Toulouse Court of Appeal (Civil Division 3rd – 1st section), the benefit of the SNC network Toulouse park, partnership, headquartered 143, avenue de Verdun 92442 Issy-les-Moulineaux, 

defendant to appeal; 

II – The appeal No. 99-20019 E formed by the NCS Network Toulouse park 

to quash the same ruling in favor of the company printing, 

defendant to appeal; 

The plaintiff in appeal No. 99-18676 V relies in support of its application, a unique way of appeal annexed to this Order; 

The plaintiff in appeal No. 99-20019 E invokes in support of its application, a unique way of appeal annexed to this Order; 

THE COURT, in the public hearing on May 9, 2001, attended by Mr. Beauvois, President, Stephan, reporting judge, Miss Fossereau, MM. Toitot, Bourrelly, Peyrat, Guerrini, Dupertuys, Philippot, Assie, Mrs. Gabet, counselors, MM. Pronier, Betoulle, Mrs. Nesi, counselors referendum, Mr. Baechlin, General Counsel, Ms. Jacomy, Clerk of room; 

On the report of Ms. Stephan, counselor, observations Choucroy Me, counsel for the SNC network Toulouse park, Me Vuitton, lawyer of the company printing the conclusions of Mr. Baechlin, General Counsel, and after deliberating in accordance with law; 

Joint appeals No. 99-20019 E and V 99-18676;
 

On the sole ground of appeal No. 99-20019 E: 

Whereas, according to the judgment (Toulouse, June 8, 1999), the company Toulouse park system, from the rights of the company Jean Rodier, by private agreement of October 8, 1992, leased to the company Printing premises for commercial use; 

that, by act of May 21, 1997, she was assigned to request payment of a sum for expenses; 

Whereas the company network Toulouse Park complains that the decision to say that the lease is void for mistake and fraud, then, in a way: 

1 / that the fraud involves an intent to deceive made by fraud; that not making any findings which establish, on the day of the conclusion of the lease, the future increase in charges was known to the lessor and had been deliberately hidden from the customer, the appeals court’s decision deprived of any legal basis under Article 1116 of the Civil Code, and that does not justify what would have been the fraud of the lessor, including what signs the contract documents published in 1992 were false, the Court of Appeal denied the decision of any legal basis under Article 1116 of the Civil Code; 

2 / that, as stated by the Tribunal, the lessor had merely applied the clear and precise terms of the lease, the lessee which left the burden of future loads so that by not seeking if the lessee had not failed in its duty to learn about the factors likely to lead to higher charges, which was likely to make his inexcusable error, the appellate court’s decision deprived of any legal basis to Under Article 1116 of the Civil Code; 

But given that having adopted, on the one hand, that prior to signing the contract, a booklet on managing costs, with the sums detailed forecast for one year, was given to the tenant, on the other hand, that Article 29 of the lease showing a specific amount of these charges with the possibility of upgrading because of unexpected expenses, and that this had increased abnormally during the years 1993 to 1997, presenting for the past year an increase of nearly triple compared to the budget, the Court of Appeal, which concluded that the major increase in terms of initial estimates was an error on the substantial quality of the rented property, has, without being required to conduct a research findings made inoperative by these grounds alone legally justified its decision on that ground;
 

But the medium’s unique appeal No. 99-18676 V: 

Having regard to Article 1109 of the Civil Code, all section 1234 of the Code; 

Whereas there is no valid consent if the consent was given in error; 

Whereas, to say that the lease is terminated as of 1 November 1998, the decision holds that the contract of successive performance is, cancellation can not intervene as of the date of termination, without her may be retroactive; 

That in so ruling, the appeals court violated the above documents; 

FOR THESE REASONS: 

Quashed, but only in what he said that the lease of October 8, 1992 was terminated on 1 November 1998, the decision of June 8, 1999, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Toulouse; calls, therefore, as to what the cause and the parties in the state they were before the judgment and to be granted, the returns to the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux; 

Condemns the SNC network Toulouse park at the expense of appeals; 

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, condemned the Toulouse Network SNC park pay the company printing the sum of 12,000 francs or 1 829.39 euros; 

Said that the audit of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, the above will be sent to be transcribed in the margin or as a result of the partially broken off; 

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 13 June two thousand and one.



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Toulouse (3rd Civil Division – 1st section) 1999-06-08

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 11, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 42.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: