Cour de Cassation — Contract Law — Formation: Object
| Date | Citation | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 15.11.2005 | Bull.civ. 2005.I. no. 412, p. 344 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 03-20.597) | |
| 07.11.2000 | Bull. civ. I, no. 283 Case M. Woessner v. M. Sigrand Subsequent developments |
A contract of sale of a doctor’s clientele, concluded at the time the practice is being set up or being transferred, may only be held valid if the patients’ freedom of choice has been respected. |
| 19.10.1999 | Contrats conc. consom. 2000, no. 39 Case Mme Fulcrand v. Mme Da Silva Subsequent developments |
Whereas a contract whereby one party agrees to introduce his/her successor to his/her customers may be held valid, a contract whereby a freelance nurse agrees to sell half of her clientele to another nurse is void. |
| 01.12.1995 | Bull. civ. A.P., no. 8 D.1996.13 Case Vassali v. Gagnaire Subsequent developments |
A clause, stating that prices are to be fixed by reference to the rates in use on the day supply orders are made, does not affect the validity of a franchising contract. But excessive prices may lead to the rescinding of the contract or to the award of damages. |
| 01.12.1995 | Bull. civ. A.P., no. 7 D. 1996, 13 Case Société Cofratel v. Société Bechtel France Subsequent developments |
Subject to contrary statutory provisions, the absence of a fixed or ascertainable price in an initial frame contract does not affect the validity of the frame contract. But excessive prices may lead to the rescinding of the contract or to the award of damages. |
| 01.12.1995 | Bull. civ. A.P., no 7 Case Société Compagnie Atlantique de téléphone v. Société Sumaco Subsequent developments |
Subject to contrary statutory provisions, the absence of a fixed or ascertainable price in an initial frame contract does not affect the validity of the frame contract. But excessive prices may lead to the rescinding of the contract or to the award of damages. |
| 01.12.1995 | Bull. civ. A.P., no. 9 D. 1996, 13 Case Société Le Montparnasse v. Société Alcatel Subsequent developments |
Article 1129 of the Civil Code, stating that the object of an obligation must be ascertained or ascertainable, does not apply to the issue of prices. |
| 31.05.1991 | D. 1991, 417 Case Procureur-général v. Cassation Subsequent developments |
A contract by which a woman, whether it be in consideration of financial remuneration or not, agrees to be a surrogate mother and to abandon the child at birth, violates the mandatory principles of the unavailability of the human body and of the unavailability of individual status. |
| 27.04.1981 | Bull. Civ. 1981.IV, no. 189 Case Gilles & Levêque v. Brasserie Léopold & Société Bertrand |
A frame contract between a distributor and a sole supplier may be held void where the contract does not contain any specific price or indications as to how to ascertain it, thus leaving the price of future sales to the seller's discretion. |
| 25.04.1939 | D.P. 1940, I, 12 Case Marion v. Raoux Subsequent developments |
When a settlement is disguised as a sales agreement, third parties to the agreement may rely either on the concealed settlement agreement or on the apparent sales agreement. In view of the compelling force of appearances, preference must be given – incase of conflicting interests between third parties – to those deceivedthird parties wishing to rely on the apparent sales agreement. |