Concerning the first limb of the ground:
Given that Leglise criticises the judgement under attack for having, at the suit of Chambart, put him into administration for insolvency, while, as manager of an officers’ mess, he did not have the status of a trader (“commerçant”), since his activity was carried out under the supervision of the military authorities in premises which were part of a military building, by means of subsidies received in order to serve low-priced meals to clients who were all soldiers;
But given that (i) the Court of Appeal, which found that Leglise managed the mess at his own risk of loss or profit, received no remuneration or salary, dealt with suppliers, paid for the produce and merchandise and received in return the subsidies which the military authority might pay him and the price of the food and drink served to the clients, and which is not obliged to follow the detail of the arguments of the parties, could rightly deduce that Leglise habitually carried on business transactions (“actes de commerce”), and that, consequently, the Court of First Instance had wrongly found that he did not have the status of trader (“commerçant”);
(ii) the ground is without foundation in its first limb;
This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.