Extract
[...] For example, it dismissed the appeal, in a decision handed down by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Cour de Cassation on 27 May 1998 (n°96-15.774), against a decision refusing to grant enforcement of a lease promise, whereas the latter, granted to a company until its dissolution, with a duration fixed at 99 years with the possibility of extension or early dissolution, related to a perpetual lease as dependent on the sole will of the lessee. As for the non-execution of the promise, the Social Chamber of the Cour de Cassation ruled on 21 September 2017 that the revocation of the promise during the time allowed to the beneficiary to opt does not prevent the formation of the promised employment contract. Thus, the legislator has now provided a solid basis for sale promises. It has taken into account what has been established by case law. This has enabled future decisions to have a legislative visa. [...]
[...] Indeed, it prevents him from retracting in an opportunistic manner. In addition, this sanction reinforces in a certain way the contractual stability. It secures transactions, particularly in the case of real estate sales, where the stakes are higher than in the case of movable sales, for example. This effective sanction is, in fact, quite widely taken into account in the protection of the beneficiary. Indeed, the judges have given rise to the liability of the complicit third party: the third civil chamber of the court of cassation judged on July that the beneficiary of a unilateral promise of sale is entitled to invoke against a person, even a stranger to this promise, either the fraud to which that person would be associated, or only the fault of which they would have been guilty in accepting to acquire a building that they knew was the subject of a promise. [...]
[...] This contradiction between the principles inherent in the law of obligations and the sanction of forced execution therefore raises a question: Does the sanction of forced execution of a sales promise infringe on the freedom of contract? The third civil chamber of the Court of Cassation replied in the negative. It added that this sanction does not constitute a deprivation of the right of property (Civ QPC October 2019, n° 19-40.028). It appears evident that the non-execution of a contract must, by principle and in all cases, be sanctioned and this, even if there was no textual basis. [...]
[...] The judges therefore strongly protect the beneficiary of the promise. Furthermore, and in the same idea, it was judged by the first civil chamber of the Court of Cassation on January that Court of Appeal which, in a sovereign manner, finds that the promisor has renounced to invoke the delay to exercise the option and that the beneficiary has paid the full price in several installments accepted by the seller, retains with good reason that the sale has become perfect". [...]
[...] It is also necessary to add that this sanction respects the very nature of the contract, it is its expected, consented and logical extension. Moreover, on the subject, a recent reversal of jurisprudence has intervened on the solution brought by the Cruz judgment. In fact, the judgment rendered on June by the third civil chamber (20-17.554) has created a real consensus between the doctrine, jurisprudence and the law: currently, without consideration of the date of conclusion of the promise, the repentant promisor attempting a retraction will no longer be able to hope for clemency from the judges. [...]
