Essential obligation
LexInter | October 24, 2007 | 0 Comments


The Court of Cassation had decided ( Cass. Civ. 3 °, May 22, 1969 ), that an architect could not discharge his responsibility on the contractor, because he could not invoke this disputed clause like clause of irresponsibility ” in to the extent that it resulted in releasing it from its essential obligations to supervise demolition and reconstruction work “.

The First Chamber of the Court of Cassation also referred to the notion of essential obligation

having noted that the SMTU had failed in its essential obligation to make available to the user the peaceful enjoyment of a location to allow him to leave his car parked, the Court of Appeal held exactly that its contractual liability was committed to the owners of vehicles damaged by a flood which did not present, for it, the characteristics of a foreign cause

Cass.civ.1 February 23, 1994

It is with the Chronopost case law that the notion of essential obligation received a great deal of attention:

by thus ruling that, as a specialist in rapid transport guaranteeing the reliability and speed of its service, the company Chronopost had undertaken to deliver the folds of the company Banchereau within a determined period, and that due to the breach of this obligation essential clause limiting the liability of the contract, which contradicted the scope of the commitment made, had to be deemed unwritten, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned text;

Cass.civ. July 1, 3, 1996

The commercial chamber also referred to the notion of essential obligation

the court of appeal, which was responsible for settling the dispute in accordance with the legal rules applicable to it and which did not introduce into the debate any factual elements which the parties would not have been able to discuss contradictorily , did not violate the principle of contradiction and made the exact application of article 1131 of the Civil Code by retaining, in order to set aside the limitation of liability clause on which the company Securinfor relied, that such a clause fell to deprive of effect the essential obligation subscribed by this company 

Cass. com July 17, 2001

only the restrictive repair clause which contradicts the scope of the essential obligation subscribed by the debtor  Cass. com. June 29, 2010

by ruling thus, whereas it had, first of all, noted that the company Oracle had undertaken to deliver version V 12 of the software package, final objective of the contracts concluded in September 1999 and that it had not fulfilled this obligation delivery neither in 1999 nor later without justifying a case of force majeure, then noted that it had never been agreed on a deployment other than that of version V 12, which results in a breach of essential obligation likely to defeat the application of the limiting repair clause, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned text Cass. com. February 13, 2007


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Reload Image