Case:
DP 1872. 1. 176 Case Foucauld et Coulombe v. Pringault
Date:
15 April 1872
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

The Court:

In view of article 1134 Code civil:

Given that, as this article states, “Contracts lawfully formed have the force of law as between the parties to them”, and that when the terms of such contracts are clear and precise, judges are not permitted to distort them or modify the stipulations they contain;

Given that in response to Pringault’s claim that he had earned certain bonuses provided for in a notice displayed in the applicants’ factory the applicants invoked the following formal clause in that notice, opposable to all workers: “It is understood that in every case payment of bonuses is entirely at the discretion of the owners”;

Given that in the cases of which it was seised the industrial tribunal of Flers declined to apply this clause, relying on the irrelevant facts that Pringault had done his work in accordance with the notice and that he had previously received bonuses, whereas in reality both when the applicants paid the bonuses and when they later refused to pay them they were using a privilege they had reserved to themselves by the clause in question either to pay or not to pay as they chose;

From which it follows that in holding the defendant factory owners liable to pay the bonuses claimed by Pringault the judgment under attack violated the terms of article 1134 Code civil;

For these reasons QUASHES the tribunal’s decision.

Subsequent Developments

This note on subsequent developments reflects the legal situation as of October 2004.

Civ 15 April 1872: "It is not for the judges, when the terms of an agreement are clear and precise, to distort the obligations which result from them, and to change the stipulations which they comprise". Case law maintained.

Cf Juriclasseur "civil", arts 1156 to 1164, instalment 20, Philippe Simler, June 2001: "The judges of the lower courts cannot, under cover of interpretation, and whatever may be their concern for justice or equity, change an agreement properly reached, under pain of the violation described of the obligatory force of the contract established by article 1134 of the Code civil. Certain excesses of this kind have led the Cour de cassation to delimit the area of sovereign power previously recognised for the judges of the lower courts, without however calling this power into question. Thus the theory of denaturing clear and precise clauses was born, the principle of which was clearly formulated by a judgment of the 15 April 1872. The judges of the lower courts cannot, under the pretext of interpretation, change the sense or the content of a contract devoid of any ambiguity. In doing so, they would contravene the fundamental principle of the obligatory force of the contract, formally pronounced by article 1134 of the Code civil. Thus the idea has emerged that, although the Cour de cassation does not have to control the interpretation made by the judges of the lower courts, it must on the other hand, on the basis of article 1134, check whether or not there are grounds for interpretation. In fact, every time that interpretation becomes a pretext for modifying a contract which is clear and precise, however inequitable and unreasonable it may have been, the judges of the lower courts are crossing the limits of their sovereign power and, by the same token, are violating article 1134. This principle, which constitutes a genuine rule of praetorien law, has since invariably been reaffirmed by prolific case law.

Translation by Mr Raymond Youngs

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.