OBLIGATION TO COUNCIL

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on June 25, 2002 Rejection.


Appeal No.: 99-15915
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Lemontey. Rapporteur: Mr. Sempere. Advocate General: M. Sainte-Rose. Lawyers: The CPS-Desaché Bret and Laugier, CPA Boré, Xavier and boron .

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
Whereas the company Delta Armor Protection has completed the installation of a system of video surveillance on the premises of the company Braff, she sued the company Braff in payment of the balance of this facility, while the company has counterclaim made a claim for payment of damages;

The first plea in its two branches;

Whereas the company Braff accuses the order confirming attacked (Rennes, March 18, 1999) to have dismissed the application, then, in a way:

1 ° that the seller of a product that is under a duty to provide advice with respect to the buyer must ensure that the installation of the hardware is compatible with current regulations, saying that seller’s duty was limited to technical competence, regardless of what the installation of cameras in the cafeteria of the company was prohibited by the laws of the Labour Code, the Court of Appeal violated Article 1135 the Civil Code;

2 ° the provision of equipment unusable under current regulations was generating a compensable injury;

But whereas the Court of Appeal, on the one hand, noted that the duty to advise the company Delta Armor protection was part necessarily in their area of technical competence , on the other hand, she held that the sovereign Braff company no justification for any injury, that the plea is unfounded;

The second plea: (Publication no interest);

For these reasons:

Dismiss the appeal.



Publication: I No. 2002 p. 177 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Rennes, 1999-03-18

Posted on ខែមករា 11, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 57 ( 1 to 57 source : lexinter.net).

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវបានបិទ។

%d bloggers like this: