Getty
LexInter | September 15, 2019 | 0 Comments

Contract by Correspondence

Court of Cassation
Commercial Chamber

Public hearing of January 7, 1981 REJECTION


N ° of appeal: 79-13499
Published in the bulletin

Pdt M. Vienne
Rpr M. Bargain
Av.Gén. M. Cochard
Av. Plaintiff: M. Copper-Royer
Av. Defendant: M. Labbé

 

FRENCH REPUBLIC
 

IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

ON THE SINGLE MEANS: WHEREAS IT RESULTS FROM THE STATEMENTS OF THE ATTACK ARRET (PARIS, APRIL 27, 1979) THAT, BY ACT OF JUNE 10, 1975, THE COMPANY L’AIGLE DISTRIBUTION (SOCIETE L’AIGLE) UNDERTAKEN TO PURCHASE FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE MAZOUT SERVICE COMASE COMPANY (COMASE COMPANY) A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF FUEL; THAT A CLAUSE IN THE ACT PROVIDED: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ONLY AFTER ITS SIGNATURE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMASE COMPANY, WHO WILL HAVE A DEADLINE OF THIRTY DAYS FROM THE SIGNATURE OF THE CLIENT FOR THIS EFFECT. . EXCEEDING THIS DEADLINE, THE PARTIES WILL BECOME FREE OF ANY COMMITMENT;
WHEREAS THE COURT OF APPEAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDEMNING THE COMPANY AIGLE TO PAY DAMAGES AND INTEREST TO THE COMPANY COMASE IN REPAIR OF THE DAMAGE TO IT CAUSED BY THE TORTS TERMINATION OF THE AIGLE COMPANY THE AGREEMENT ABOVE PROVIDED THAT THE COMASE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THIS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED, THEN, ACCORDING TO APPEAL, THAT THE PERSON WHO REQUESTS THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION MUST PROVIDE IT, THAT THE COMASE COMPANY MUST THEREFORE PROVIDE PROOF ‘SHE HAD NOTIFIED ITS ACCEPTANCE TO THE AIGLE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY BEFORE 10 JULY 1975, THAT BASING ITS DECISION ONLY ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT A LETTER FROM THE COMASE COMPANY DATED 3 JULY 1975 WAS ADDRESSED TO THE DEBATES, THAT THE COMPANYAIGLE DISTRIBUTION COULD NOT REACH IT SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 10, THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF, THAT IT BELONGS TO THE COMASE COMPANY ONLY TO PROVE THAT THE LETTER HAD ARRIVED BEFORE THE DEADLINE AND NOT TO THE SOCIETE L’AIGLE DISTRIBUTION TO BRING PROOF OF THE CONTRARY, THAT BY NOT SEEKING ELSEWHERE IF THE LETTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED BEFORE 10 JULY TO THE RECIPIENT COMPANY, THE COURT PRIVATE ITS LEGAL BASIS DECISION;PROVIDE PROOF OF THE CONTRARY, THAT BY NOT SEEKING ELSEWHERE IF THE LETTER HAD RECEIVED BEFORE 10 JULY TO THE RECIPIENT COMPANY, THE COURT PRIVATE ITS LEGAL BASIS DECISION;PROVIDE PROOF OF THE CONTRARY, THAT BY NOT SEEKING ELSEWHERE IF THE LETTER HAD RECEIVED BEFORE 10 JULY TO THE RECIPIENT COMPANY, THE COURT PRIVATE ITS LEGAL BASIS DECISION;
BUT WHEREAS, FAULTY OF THE CONTRARY STIPULATION, THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1975 WAS INTENDED TO BECOME PERFECT, NOT BY THE RECEPTION BY THE COMPANY L’AIGLE OF ACCEPTANCE FROM THE COMASE COMPANY, BUT BY ISSUANCE BY THE COMPANY. CI OF THIS ACCEPTANCE; WHEREAS THE SUBMISSION, WHICH SUPPORTS THE CONTRARY, IS BASED ON;
FOR THESE REASONS: DISMISSES THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT RENDERED ON APRIL 27, 1979 BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PARIS.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image