Contract nullity, mental insanity, guardianship, Civil Code, Article 414-2, capacity to contract, mental disorder, protective measure, damages and interest, French law
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 3
Abstract
This case study examines the nullity of a contract signed by Hector, a famous artist, due to his mental insanity. The article discusses the conditions for contesting the contract and the consequences of guardianship.
Extract
[...] In fact, when the author of the act is alive, only he can act in nullity of the said act (Article 414-2 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code), and this within a period of 5 years (Article 2224 of the Civil Code) from the day of the contested act, unless the author proves the impossibility of acting. (Cass. civ. 1he November 1991, n°90-10.997). In this case, the act was concluded at the end of 2022. Hector can therefore act in nullity until the end of 2027. Thus, Hector can contest the act on the basis of his mental insanity, until the end of 2027, in order to hope to obtain the nullity of the act (article 414-2 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code), and damages and interest (article 414-3 of the Civil Code). [...]
[...] In this case, the act was concluded at the end of 2022, the guardianship was pronounced in February 2023. Furthermore, the action must be brought within a period of 5 years from the judgment opening the protective measure (article 464 paragraph 3 of the Civil Code). Therefore, the action can be brought by Céline and Antoine until 15 February 2028. Thus, Hector's children can contest the act performed by him before the opening of the guardianship, at their own expense to establish that he was not capable of contracting validly due to the alteration of his mental faculties. [...]
[...] In late 2022, he concluded a contract with a Parisian hall for a representation. However, the 2,500 ? fee is very below what Hector is usually paid. Furthermore, Antoine and Céline have decided to open a guardianship for their father, which was pronounced by the judge on February 15, 2023. The question is, on the one hand, whether it is possible to challenge the contract in light of Hector's difficulties related to his age and, on the other hand, to determine the consequences of the guardianship on the contract I. [...]
[...] In this case, Hector presents a certain and sufficiently serious mental disorder, in that he often loses his belongings and struggles to remember the names of his children. It is then difficult to imagine that he is sane enough to contract validly. In addition, this disorder was probably present at the time of the conclusion of the contract, since he accepted a fee below what he usually obtains. Therefore, all the conditions for acting in nullity are met, at Hector's charge to prove them. [...]
