Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on May 15, 2002 Cassation.

Appeal No.: 99-21521
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Lemontey. Rapporteur: Ms. Benas. Advocate General: M. Sainte-Rose. Lawyers: MM. Jacoupy, Odent.

The unique way, made its first branch:

See Section 1315 of the Civil Code ;

Whereas Ms. Cardoso has acquired a used motor vehicle from Mr. Guillot, garage, an expertise ordered in chambers ruled that the vehicle had been broken, as the support of its action for annulment of the sale to reluctance fraudulent, Ms. Cardoso argued that the seller had concealed the accident;

Whereas, to deny the request, the decision holds that Ms. Cardoso did not bring evidence of such concealment, by so holding, while the e professional seller is under a duty to inform against his client and its responsibility to prove that such an obligation, the Court of Appeal violated the text referred to above;

For these reasons, and without any need to rule on the second part of the plea:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of September 24, 1998, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Lyon; 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 Lyon, differently composed.


Publication: I No. 2002 p. 132 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Lyon, 1998-09-24


Posted on ខែមករា 11, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 55.


%d bloggers like this: