THE COURT, at the public hearing of 10 January 1996
Given that Mme Hildebrand criticises the judgement under attack (Paris, 21 January 1994) for having ordered her to pay to M. Gautier a sum of F100,000 by way of payment for work carried out in the shop where she carried on business ..
And regarding the second ground, taken in its two limbs:
Given that the Court of Appeal is also criticised for having ordered Mrs. Hildebrand to pay Mr. Gautier a sum of money amounting to half the sale price of her business, on the one hand breaching the rule according to which the validity of an agreement must be determined as of the day it is signed, and, on the other hand, for ignoring article 1129 of the Code Civil, according to which the price of an obligation must be determinable;
But given that 1) article 1129 of the Civil Code does not apply to determine a price; 2) that the Court of Appeal, which found, as was its sovereign right, that the dispute concerned the payment of the works carried out by Mr. Gautier, has legally justified its decision by holding that Mrs. Hildebrand had undertaken to pay Mr. Gautier a fee amounting to half of the sale price of her business;
3) therefore none of the grounds can be accepted;
ON THESE GROUNDS:
DISMISSES the application for review;
This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.