JURITEXT000006953694 Généré par l'IA

Vendor's Suit for Rescission and Retention of Payments Rejected

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006953694

Autorité / Tribunal Cour de cassation

Juridiction

France (FR)

Date de la décision 1960-04-21

Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

A vendor who had contracted to sell a building but retained possession until full payment was made sued the purchaser for rescission of the sale after the purchaser failed to make the agreed final payment, seeking to recover the property and the installment payments already made; the court rejected the appeal, reasoning that under the law, when a resolutory condition is attached to a contract, the fulfillment of that condition only permits the innocent party to demand the retroactive cancellation of the contract and restitution of what has been paid, but the vendor, having chosen to seek rescission of the sale due to non-payment, could not simultaneously claim both the return of the property and retention of the sums paid as an indemnity for the use of the property, as this would constitute an enrichment contrary to the principle of restitution inherent in the rescission of a sale due to non-payment.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Vendor's Suit for Rescission and Retention of Payments Rejected: A vendor who had contracted to sell a building but retained possession until full payment was made sued the purchaser for rescission of the sale after the purchaser failed to make the agreed final payment, seeking to recover the property and the installment payments already made; the court rejected the appeal, reasoning that under the law, when a resolutory condition is attached to a contract, the fulfillment of that condition only permits the innocent party to demand the retroactive cancellation of the contract and restitution of what has been paid, but the vendor, having chosen to seek rescission of the sale due to non-payment, could not simultaneously claim both the return of the property and retention of the sums paid as an indemnity for the use of the property, as this would constitute an enrichment contrary to the principle of restitution inherent in the rescission of a sale due to non-payment.