Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
JURITEXT000006954214 Généré par l'IA

Former Director v. Employer: Breach of Contract Damages Affirmed

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006954214
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An employer appealed a decision that ordered it to pay damages to its former director for breach of contract concerning the provision of housing and a delayed automobile, arguing the lower court ruled globally without specifying the basis for the housing and car claims or quantifying the actual loss suffered. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, finding that the lower court properly established the breach—the director was not housed as stipulated for the entire contract duration and received the promised car three months late, forcing him to maintain a second home and live separately—and that the global valuation of the resulting prejudice at 500,000 francs was a matter of factual appreciation beyond the Court of Cassation's review.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 1134, Art. 1146, Art. 1149, Art. 23 du Livre 1er du Code du Travail, Art. 7 de la loi du 20 avril 1810; Former Director v. Employer: Breach of Contract Damages Affirmed: The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, finding that the lower court properly established the breach—the director was not housed as stipulated for the entire contract duration and received the promised car three months late, forcing him to maintain a second home and live separately—and that the global valuation of the resulting prejudice at 500,000 francs was a matter of factual appreciation beyond the Court of Cassation's review.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
inexécution d'une obligation contractuelle responsabilité des administrateurs commandement de payer motifs de cassation versement de dommages-intérêts motif de révision

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 1134
This article from the Civil Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision based on contract performance/non-performance.
Art. 1146
This article from the Civil Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision regarding damages for non-performance.
Art. 1149
This article from the Civil Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision regarding the assessment of damages.
Art. 23 du Livre 1er du Code du Travail
This article from the Labor Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision concerning employment obligations.
Art. 7 de la loi du 20 avril 1810
This procedural law article was cited in the grounds of appeal concerning the requirement for legal justification, the rejection of which implies confirmation of the lower court's reasoning in light of the grounds raised.
Généré par l'IA
JURITEXT000006970344
Former Director Liability for Contract Breach and Unjustified Reversal of Salary Award
18-10061
Director's Dismissal and Damages for Exclusivity Clause Breach
89-40611
Organization v. Former Director (Fixed-Term Contract Dispute)
20-22687
Company v. Defendant: Breach of Contract and Procedural Violation in Termination Agreement Dispute
90-41824
Commercial Director v. Employer: Salary Modification and Wrongful Termination Damages

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 1134

This article from the Civil Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision based on contract performance/non-performance.

Art. 1146

This article from the Civil Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision regarding damages for non-performance.

Art. 1149

This article from the Civil Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision regarding the assessment of damages.

Art. 23 du Livre 1er du Code du Travail

This article from the Labor Code was cited in the grounds of appeal, which the Court implicitly confirmed by rejecting the appeal against the decision concerning employment obligations.

Art. 7 de la loi du 20 avril 1810

This procedural law article was cited in the grounds of appeal concerning the requirement for legal justification, the rejection of which implies confirmation of the lower court's reasoning in light of the grounds raised.

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

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE, VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 1134, 1146, 1149 DU CODE CIVIL, 23 DU LIVRE 1ER DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, ET 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE ;

ATTENDU QUE LA SOCIETE DES PRODUITS SULTA FAIT GRIEF AU JUGEMENT CONFIRMATIF ATTAQUE DE L'AVOIR CONDAMNEE A PAYER A SON ANCIEN DIRECTEUR BOUCHET LA SOMME DE 500000 FRANCS DE DOMMAGES-INTERETS POUR DEFAUT DE FOURNITURE DE LOGEMENT ET RETARD DANS LA MISE A SA DISPOSITION D'UNE VOITURE AUTOMOBILE ALORS QUE, NI LE DEMANDEUR NI LE TRIBUNAL, N'ONT VENTILE CES DEUX CHEFS D'INDEMNITE SUR LESQUELS IL A ETE STATUE GLOBALEMENT, ET ALORS QUE LE TRIBUNAL NE S'EST PAS EXPLIQUE SUR LA PERTE SUBIE PAR BOUCHET NI LE GAIN DONT IL AURAIT ETE PRIVE PAR SUITE DE L'INEXECUTION REPROCHEE, N'ETANT MEME PAS ETABLI QU'ELLE LUI AIT PORTE PREJUDICE ;

MAIS ATTENDU QUE LES JUGES DU FOND ONT CONSTATE QUE, CONTRAIREMENT AUX TERMES DE SON CONTRAT D'ENGAGEMENT, BOUCHET N'AVAIT PAS ETE LOGE PAR LA SOCIETE PENDANT TOUTE LA DUREE DE SON CONTRAT, QU'IL AVAIT ETE OBLIGE DE CONSERVER UN DOUBLE FOYER ET DE VIVRE SEUL A L'HOTEL LOIN DE SA FAMILLE, ET QUE LA VOITURE AUTOMOBILE PROMISE NE LUI AVAIT ETE FOURNIE QU'AVEC UN RETARD DE TROIS MOIS ;

QU'EN EVALUANT A 500000 FRANCS LE PREJUDICE AINSI SUBI PAR BOUCHET, PREJUDICE QUI POUVAIT ETRE EVALUE GLOBALEMENT, LE JUGEMENT ATTAQUE, DONT L'APPRECIATION ECHAPPE AU CONTROLE DE LA COUR DE CASSATION, A LEGALEMENT JUSTIFIE SA DECISION ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE LE JUGEMENT RENDU LE 26 NOVEMBRE 1958 PAR LE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DE PROVINS ;

N° 59-40115 SOCIETE LES PRODUITS SULTA C BOUCHET ;

PRESIDENT : M VERDIER - RAPPORTEUR : M LEVADOUX - AVOCAT GENERAL : M LINDON - AVOCATS : MM ROUSSEAU ET GALLAND.