Crevel, Samuel, JCP G Legal Week (general edition), No. 50, 11/12/2002, pp. 2231-2233

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on February 5, 2002 Cassation.


Appeal No.: 99-21444
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Renard-Payen, acting senior advisor. . Rapporteur: Ms. Benas. Advocate General: M. Sainte-Rose. Counsel: CPS Celica, Blancpain and Soltner.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
The first plea, made its first branch:

See section 1110 of the Civil Code;

Whereas at the auction of September 29, 1993 led by Mr. Cornette de Saint Cyr, the auctioneer, Mr. Brossard was awarded the contract to a “trap table” entitled “My Breakfast 1972” presented to the catalog as the work of Daniel Spoerri, arguing that it was not a work executed by him, but a “work made under license” by a third party, Mr. Brossard requested nullity of the sale to error on the substantial quality;

Whereas, to dismiss the buyer’s request, the judgment holds that Daniel Spoerri, who wished to enforce the “trap table” by others, was authenticated, among others, the picture in question so that the well it was an original work of Daniel Spoerri, regardless of whether Mr. Cornette de Saint-Cyr did not specify that the work had been executed “in patent,” and so, Mr. Brossard who wanted to acquire a work This artist has indeed acquired a painting of it did not show that consent was vitiated;

Considering that ‘acting as it did, but whether, given the references to the catalog, the buyer’s consent was not vitiated by an erroneous conviction and excusable that the work was performed by Daniel Spoerri himself, the Court of Appeal did not give a legal basis for its decision;

For these reasons, and without any need to rule on the second part of the first means or the second way:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of October 18, 1999, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Paris shall, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before said stop, and to be granted, the returns to the Court of Appeal of Paris, differently composed.



Publication: Bulletin 2002 I No. 46 p. 36 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1999-10-18 titrations

Posted on ខែមករា 11, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 43.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវបានបិទ។

%d bloggers like this: