Extract
[...] On the other hand, if the owner did not offer the warehouse to his friend, things get complicated. Indeed, she can request the annulment of the future sale or her substitution for the couple. The couple therefore risks losing the property. Fortunately, this is only possible if the friend proves that the couple knew of the existence of the pact and her intention to rely on it. Admittedly, the couple knew of the existence of the pact from early September 2024, but not the friend's intention to rely on it. As these are cumulative conditions (Cass. Civ. [...]
[...] However, Alexandra and Marc fear that they will not get a loan at favorable conditions. Wanting to put all the chances on their side, the young couple decides to constitute a personal contribution and, to do so, puts Marc's collection motorcycle up for sale. Enriched by the sale of the motorcycle, Alexandra and Marc decide to concretize their real estate project. During their visits, they fall under the charm of an old warehouse that can be rehabilitated. On July Tony, the owner of the property, grants them a sales promise with an option to exercise before October and subject to obtaining an administrative authorization for the change of destination of the warehouse. [...]
[...] The pact of preference The problem is as follows: can a pact of preference concluded on August for a duration of twenty years cause the failure of an unexpired unilateral promise of sale? Article 1123 of the Civil Code provides that, in a pact of preference, the promisor undertakes to offer the property to the beneficiary first if they wish to sell it. However, if a contract is concluded with a third party in violation of the pact, the beneficiary may request the nullity of the contract or to substitute the third party, if the third party knew of the existence of the pact and the beneficiary's intention to rely on it. [...]
[...] However, the seller could defend himself by invoking that Alexandra is a midwife, therefore she should have known this information, since she lives in the mode of birth. However, the role of a midwife is to help future mothers during pregnancy and childbirth. But it is not to advise mothers on the type of products to buy. This means of defense is therefore ineffective. Thus, Alexandra will likely be able to obtain the annulment of the sale of the stroller, as the seller did not provide her with a determining information of her consent. [...]
[...] In this case, the couple is faced with a unilateral promise of sale according to Article 1124 of the Civil Code. In fact, the owner has given his consent to the sale, with a suspensive condition. He has granted the couple an option period. Therefore, in principle, only their consent is missing to conclude the sale. The problem lies in the suspensive condition, according to which the couple must obtain administrative authorization if they wish to buy. Certainly, it is an obligation on their part, but it is not a synallagmatic promise, as the couple has not committed to buying. [...]
