Court of Cassation Ruling on Fraud and Contract Nullity

Extract

[...] If not, as in this case and the contract is concluded prior to the entry into force of the provisions, either the 1er in October 2016 then article 1186 of the Civil Code will not be applicable. Scope The Court of Cassation applies STRICTLY and CLASSICALLY the rules of law in time. Strictly, since it is article 2 of the Civil Code that provides that the law is not retroactive by principle, it therefore receives application at the time of its entry into force. [...]

[...] The seller installed the air conditioner inside and outside the buyer's home. On 19 June 2013, the buyer subscribed a one-year maintenance contract renewable by tacit reconduction with the seller. On 15 May 2015, the seller informed the buyer that he would not renew the contract. The buyer brought the seller to justice before the Marseille proximity jurisdiction for abusive breach of the maintenance contract, requesting the reimbursement of travel expenses and the repair of the damage. The Marseille proximity jurisdiction, on 30 June 2017, rejected the demands of the plaintiff (the buyer). [...]

[...] NOTE : In accordance with the provisions of Section I of Article 16 of Law No. 2018-287 of 20 April 2018, the provisions of Article 1137 in their version resulting from the said law are applicable to legal acts concluded or established as from its entry into force. - Provisions of the Civil Code relating to fraud as resulting from the ordinance of 10 February 2016 « Article 1137 of the Civil Code» « Fraud is the fact for a contracting party to obtain the consent of the other by means of tricks or lies. [...]

[...] Classic, since the Court of Cassation returns to a constant jurisprudence. It is customary for the Court of Cassation to apply the new provisions to contracts concluded after the entry into force of the provisions. Nevertheless, it has happened that the Court of Cassation has applied the new provisions to facts prior to the entry into force of the law (in the matter of mandate). (Cass. 1e civil 20-9-2017 n° 16-12.906 FS-PB : RJDA 12/17 n° 789). In this species, the Court of Cassation did not innovate, but classically applied the rules of the law in time. [...]

[...] The buyer could therefore not obtain damages on the grounds of abusive termination of the contract, as the contract was null and void. SCOPE For the Court of Cassation, Article 1186 of the new Civil Code being unable to be applied, the contract could then not be judicially established as null and void. The solution of the first instance court might then be different. The case was sent back to the proximity jurisdiction to apply the provisions resulting from the old contract law CITATION « CANCELS AND ANNULS, in all its provisions, the judgment rendered on June between the parties, by the proximity jurisdiction of Marseille; remits, as a result, the case and the parties to the state in which they were before said judgment and, to be given right, sends them back to the court of first instance of Aubagne; SENSE The proximity jurisdiction has violated the legislative texts and more particularly article 9 of the ordinance of February However, the Court of Cassation only rules on law and not on fact, it is therefore not competent to apply the applicable texts itself in 2013. [...]