Extract
[...] What comes first is the overall coherence. > Yes, in detailin light of these indications it is necessary to go further, the second paragraphfrom the'art provides that the contract 'is interpretedaccording to the sense that a reasonable person placed in the same situation would give it. > If it was ever so poorly written and it's unclear, there is still the recourse to article 1190: "in case of doubt in abstracto or in contracto analysis, the negotiated contract is interpreted against the creditor and in favor of the debtor and the adhesion contract against the one who proposed it" hierarchy in the risrules of interpretation, but does not impose itself on the judge, it sit's just about'a guide (although more useful). [...]
[...] > Reform of 2016 Today, the recourse of the stipulation for another is free (and more regulated by law) except for stipulation of the law This stipulation for another is therefore a contract on a future contract However, at the time of its formation, it is not necessarily obligatory that the beneficiary be known (it is just necessary that he be determined at the time of the transaction) > Relationship between the promisor and the beneficiary : - The promisor has committed himself to the beneficiary in such a way that the latter can perfectly act in contractual liability if the former is in default - The beneficiary will be able to act against the promisor as soon as the contract is formed > Relationship between the obligor and the beneficiary : - As long as the stipulation has not been accepted, the obligor can revoke it and remains committed to the beneficiary - After acceptance it is no longer revocable V - Promise of safe carriage > It is governed by Article 1204 of the Civil Code, which provides that "one can rely on promising the fact ofa third party". There has always been a relationship between the parties (promising-stipulating and beneficiary); the idea is that the promisor has chosen to commit to the other partyisof the stipulant to have a third party commit to the other partyisfrom him. (One could almost say that it's a pre-contract However, this third party cannot be held by the simple promise of a guarantor. The promisor undertakes to have in substance the co-contractor thatthe promisor. [...]
[...] Here, a simple increase in counterparty should not be taken into account by art it must be that the person's situation is particularlyisis a bad remuneration, with an essential alteration of the balance between the performances. It is only by filling these three criteria that the theory can produce its effects. 2. Imprudence Regime > There are two major periods to this regime. First, art preprescribes that'it is necessary to pursue the execution of the contract. Thus, he who intends to rely on art must first pursue the execution of the contract.isof the judge of a modification of the contract must before anything continue to execute it according to its terms. [...]
[...] There is no perfect overlap between the two regimes: the characterization of a delictual fault remains necessary. > The project of reform of liability civil s'opposed, however, to a complete assimilationisbetween contractual fault and delictual fault. > Thus, while proof-based opposability is widely accepted, substantial opposability remains more complex because it directly questions the articulation between contractual liability and delictual liability. II - The notion of third party to the contract > A third party therefore is one who is not a party to the contract However, there are intermediate situations, sometimes a representative intervenes A - Representation > It is aimed at art 1151 to 1153 cciv, c'is the idea that a person can perform an act on behalf of someone else, the act will not have effects in the assets of the one who performs the act but the other. [...]
[...] It cannot intervene in the contractual relationship, and cannot distort the relationship; it is only a guarantee of the proper execution of the contract. So, when we say that it is the law of the parties, it would almost be the law of everyone. > A celto be added to the contract what the legislator wants to see appearthree (B). B - Legal Extension > This extension results from art CC, which states that contracts not only obligate to what is expressed in them, but also to all the consequences that equity, usage, or law gives them. [...]
