Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATA/560/2005 • CJ GE ATA/560/2005 Généré par l'IA

Contractual Interpretation Over Statutory Default in Financial Obligation Calculation

Numéro de cause ATA/560/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The case involved a dispute over the validity of a contractual provision regarding the calculation of certain financial obligations, with one party arguing that the agreed-upon formula was ambiguous and that the governing statute should dictate the outcome, while the other maintained the contract language was clear and controlling. The court reasoned that the contractual terms, when read in context with the entire agreement, were sufficiently specific to establish the parties' intent regarding the calculation method, and therefore, the plain meaning of the contract superseded the operation of the default statutory provision which would have applied only in the absence of such an express agreement.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Contractual Interpretation Over Statutory Default in Financial Obligation Calculation: The court reasoned that the contractual terms, when read in context with the entire agreement, were sufficiently specific to establish the parties' intent regarding the calculation method, and therefore, the plain meaning of the contract superseded the operation of the default statutory provision which would have applied only in the absence of such an express agreement.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
interprétation du contrat dispositions financières défaut d'une partie intérêt moratoire légal mode de calcul substitution de débiteur

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This provision was cited in the dispositive for awarding costs to the appellant.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

        

        

 

   

 



 ! "#$





%&&&&&&&&&&%% 









' ( '' ))'' '(* ) 





     !"# 

' 

&'   ())  * +,) !$$%-  ,)  ./)    ,)0)  )) 1 2'3333333333 2' '- )(( .)))(  333333333 4,-5)06.)))6733333333(),(  8./06,(9)0()-)) )-6()(.)(-/'

!'   #& +,) !$$%- 2'3333333333 2' '    )0 )))/   ())64 )/.)))5'

#'    :)  .6) 6 66)(  ; . !$$%- 2'3333333332' '5)(5'

;'   )0<.!$$%-)/(),)(2'333333333 2' ' 1 ) 5) 6,) +7: #& . !$$%- ), 6)4 )) 7 :))(   6)  /   5.   8)  0)  ..(.76=)0(#&+,)!$$% 6() ,/.  )((' :)     (( )(  :/)0)6)/1:(/).5)'

  ):6,2'33333333332' ':6(0)'

%'   &% +) !$$%-  6)  (( )5.( 7   () 0( 1 +0'

' ) 

&'  +(  .6 ) ,  +))) .6(-    ,/6),>'%* )?0))+)))!! ,./ &<;&     ! $%@ ' *# ' & )'    )   6( .))),&!6./&<A%    %&$B'

!'  2 :) !!  -  6) ), / 1  )  5)   6( 7: ))  .C.'    (5  /))4-)/66:),/))( )> "&#!"!$$%A.!$$%@ "*"!$$%&&+,)!$$%B'

   -    5) (5  : )  .6) 6:6()1.6)4-6. (.))(()0(66()('

  ,7)6(4-)=)6:),/))('

"###"!$$% #"# 

#'  (.. DE#$$' .)190>'AF  B' GGGGG

+  ')  '   

(),/)+(<5(,)!$$%62'3333333332' ' ()),)./),)0)*+,)!$$%@

.190(.. DE#$$' @

..)76(C12'33333333332' '-,)./) ,)0)))7:1?55)5((1'

2)(0H I'=94-6()-I' 9()-I.-+0'

. )/.)))5H

055)4 +)H  6()H     ') 2)0) E'=94   

6)5.C((..)7(86)'

 4,-  055)4H           

"###"!$$%