Extract
[...] However, if the promisor wants to obtain in addition a material reparation, that is to say the benefit of the priority that the preference agreement has conferred on him, he must also involve the third party with whom the promisor has contracted in breach of his promise. In demonstrating that « the third party knew of the existence of the agreement and the beneficiary's intention to rely on it. In this case Jean Ménépé to obtain damages and interest by putting the contractual liability of the owner at stake but will not be able to obtain the annulment of the sale due to being unable to prove that the third party had knowledge of the preference agreement. [...]
[...] The preference agreement is the contract by which, a person, the promisor, promises to another, the beneficiary, to offer them the conclusion of a contract whose nature and object are already determined, in the event that they decide to contract. This contractual priority implies that any offer related to the contract targeted by the preference agreement must necessarily be addressed in priority to the beneficiary of the agreement, this can be concluded for a determined or undetermined duration. « When a contract is concluded with a third party in violation of a preference agreement, the beneficiary may obtain compensation for the damage suffered. [...]
[...] If the sanction is only pursued against the promisor, the contractual liability of the latter being in no doubt, the promisor may obtain their condemnation to damages and interest. However, if the promisor wants to obtain in addition a reparation in kind, that is to say the benefit of the priority that the preference agreement has conferred on him, he must also involve the third party with whom the promisor has contracted in violation of his promise. « When the third party knew of the existence of the agreement and the beneficiary's intention to rely on it, the latter may also act for nullity or ask the judge to substitute him for the third party in the contract concluded ». [...]
[...] Thus, the unilateral sales promise concluded between Louis Ménépé and André Murat is illicit in light of this preference agreement since it occurs during the effective duration of the preference agreement. In light of the illicitness of this unilateral sales promise, Jean Caillade can obtain damages and interest by invoking the contractual liability of Louis Ménépé and can also recover the benefit of the priority by demonstrating that the third party, André Murat, had knowledge of the existence of the preference agreement, which is the case here. [...]
[...] However, the seller concluded a unilateral promise of sale with a third party, André Murat, on May who had knowledge of the sale promise already signed by the owner, whose option was lifted on June Finally, the owner sold without considering the various sale promises he had made in the past to another third party, Henri Durand, who had knowledge that the land to be sold, the subject of the agreements concluded in the past, would be constructible and had participated in the modification of the local urban plan. This allowed him to sell it more than 20 times its original price. Our client Jean Caillade therefore clarifies his situation in light of these different acts. - The unilateral promise of sale concluded between Louis Ménépé and André Is the unilateral promise of sale between Murat and Louis Ménépé legal in light of the preference agreement concluded between Jean Caillade and Louis Ménépé? [...]
