|12.03.2002||Civ 1 483 Pourvoi n°. 99-13.9178 Case Pellet v. Société Générale||Article 48 of the Law of 1 March 1984, now Article L.313-22 of the Monetary and Financial Code, provides that the beneficiary of a guarantee relating to the debt of an undertaking (entreprise) must inform the guarantor or surety every year of the current situation of the debt guaranteed (amount outstanding, etc.), and that failure so to do entails the loss of the right to claim from the surety interest at the contractual rate from the date information was last given to the date when it is in fact given. This somewhat obscure provision has proved a fruitful source of difficulties for banks, which have not always understood the extent of the obligation, no doubt because of the ambiguity of the term entreprise. This case concerns the question as to whether a profession, which is not commercial, is an entreprise. The Court held that it is.|
|12.03.2002||Civ 1 no.485 Pourvoi n° 99-17.209 Case Benard et Autres v. Caisse dEpargne et de Prévoyance Poitou-Charente||This case, on the same issue as the previous one (judgement being given on the same day), holds that a religious organisation employing 37 persons is an entreprise for the purposes of Article L. 313-22 of the Monetary and Financial Code.|
|12.03.2002||Civ. 1 no 486 Pourvoi n° 99-15.598 Case Sulli v. Union de Crédit pour le Bâtiment||Another judgement handed down on the same day as the two preceding ones (on the same issue).
A limited partnership created to hold real property (not a commercial activity in French law) is an entreprise for the purposes of Article L. 313-22 of the Monetary and Financial Code.