Contract Validity Based on Abuse of Right vs. Strict Legal Prohibition

The case involved a challenge to a lower court's decision that found a contract void because its object was considered illicit, though the object itself was not strictly prohibited by law, but rather constituted an abuse of a right by violating mandatory regulations concerning public order. The highest court quashed the lower court's decision, reasoning that a contract's object can only be declared void if it is strictly contrary to a formal legal prohibition or mandatory rule, and merely violating regulations that do not explicitly render the resulting legal act null is insufficient grounds for voiding the contract.