Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
JURITEXT000006961813 Généré par l'IA

Appeal Regarding Classification of Furnished Premises Agreement as Lease

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006961813
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The appellant contested a lower court decision, arguing that an agreement concerning the use of furnished premises with ancillary services for a monthly fee did not constitute a lease governed by the law of September 1, 1948, but rather a different type of arrangement, and that the appellate court failed to adequately address the grounds for its claim that the arrangement was merely temporary lodging. The high court upheld the appellate court's finding that since the agreement precisely matched the definition of a lease under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1709, by involving the cession of enjoyment of furnished premises in exchange for a monthly price, it was correctly qualified as a lease governed by the specific regulations of the 1948 statute, thereby rejecting the appeal for insufficient reasoning and misapplication of the law.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE 1709 DU CODE CIVIL, Art. 1709 du Code Civil, Art. 1134 du Code Civil, Art. 35, Art. 43, Loi du 1er Septembre 1948; Appeal Regarding Classification of Furnished Premises Agreement as Lease: The high court upheld the appellate court's finding that since the agreement precisely matched the definition of a lease under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1709, by involving the cession of enjoyment of furnished premises in exchange for a monthly price, it was correctly qualified as a lease governed by the specific regulations of the 1948 statute, thereby rejecting the appeal for insufficient reasoning and misapplication of the law.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
contrat de bail loyer modéré droit d'accès aux droits réels calcul du loyer contrat d'hôtellerie matière civile et commerciale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 1709 DU CODE CIVIL
codecivil
Art. 1709 du Code Civil
The Court of Appeal correctly qualified the agreement as a lease agreement because it met the definition provided in this article.
Art. 1134 du Code Civil
This article was cited in the ground of appeal which the court rejected.
Art. 35
The contract, qualified as a lease, was deemed governed by the provisions of the Law of September 1, 1948, including Article 35.
Art. 43
The contract, qualified as a lease, was deemed governed by the provisions of the Law of September 1, 1948, including Article 43.
Loi du 1er Septembre 1948
The agreement was held to be governed by this law following its qualification as a lease.
Loi du 20 Avril 1810
Cited in the ground of appeal concerning the lack of reasoning, which was implicitly rejected by confirming the lower court's decision.
Art. 7 de la Loi du 20 Avril 1810
Cited in the ground of appeal concerning the lack of reasoning, which was implicitly rejected by confirming the lower court's decision.
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 1709 du Code Civil

The Court of Appeal correctly qualified the agreement as a lease agreement because it met the definition provided in this article.

Art. 1134 du Code Civil

This article was cited in the ground of appeal which the court rejected.

Art. 35

The contract, qualified as a lease, was deemed governed by the provisions of the Law of September 1, 1948, including Article 35.

Art. 43

The contract, qualified as a lease, was deemed governed by the provisions of the Law of September 1, 1948, including Article 43.

Loi du 1er Septembre 1948

The agreement was held to be governed by this law following its qualification as a lease.

Loi du 20 Avril 1810

Cited in the ground of appeal concerning the lack of reasoning, which was implicitly rejected by confirming the lower court's decision.

Art. 7 de la Loi du 20 Avril 1810

Cited in the ground of appeal concerning the lack of reasoning, which was implicitly rejected by confirming the lower court's decision.

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 PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 1134 ET 1709 DU CODE CIVIL, FAUSSE APPLICATION DE LA LOI DU 1ER SEPTEMBRE 1948, VIOLATION DE L'ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810 POUR DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, EN CE QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE, INFIRMANT LA DECISION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE, A DECIDE QUE LA CONVENTION PASSEE ENTRE DAME Y... ET DAME Z... EN 1957 AU VESINET (SEINE-ET-OISE) CONSTITUAIT UN VERITABLE BAIL, AU MOTIF QUE LA CONVENTION LITIGIEUSE S'ANALYSAIT SEULEMENT COMME UNE CONVENTION LOCATIVE, ALORS QUE, SELON LE POURVOI, LA COUR SE SERAIT ABSTENUE DE RECHERCHER LES ELEMENTS PERMETTANT DE REJETER LA QUALIFICATION DE BAIL, OMETTANT AINSI DE REPONDRE TANT AUX CHEFS DU JUGEMENT DE PREMIERE INSTANCE QU'AUX CONCLUSIONS D'APPEL DE DAME Y... QUI EN DEMANDAIT LA CONFIRMATION ;

MAIS ATTENDU QUE, CONSTATANT EXPRESSEMENT QUE LA CONVENTION INTERVENUE ENTRE LES PARTIES COMPORTAIT DE LA PART DE DAME Y... LA CESSION DE LA JOUISSANCE DE DIVERS LOCAUX MEUBLES AU PREMIER ETAGE DE LA VILLA DONT ELLE ETAIT ELLE-MEME LOCATAIRE PRINCIPALE, AVEC DES FOURNITURES ACCESSOIRES, POUR UN LAPS DE TEMPS NON DEFINI ET, EN CONTREPARTIE POUR UN PRIX DE 45.000 ANCIENS FRANCS PAR MOIS, C'EST A BON DROIT QUE LES JUGES D'APPEL ONT ESTIME QUE CETTE CONVENTION, QUI REPONDAIT EXACTEMENT A LA DEFINITION DE L'ARTICLE 1709 DU CODE CIVIL, NE POUVAIT S'ANALYSER QU'EN UN CONTRAT DE LOUAGE, LEQUEL SE TROUVAIT, EN L'ESPECE, REGI PAR LES DISPOSITIONS DE LA LOI DU 1ER SEPTEMBRE 1948, NOTAMMENT DANS SES ARTICLES 35 ET 43 ;

QUE PAR CETTE SEULE CONSIDERATION QUI REJETTE NECESSAIREMENT TOUTES LES PRETENTIONS DE DAME Y... DE FAIRE ADMETTRE QU'IL NE S'ETAIT AGI ENTRE DAME Z... ET ELLE QUE D'UN HEBERGEMENT PROVISOIRE, LA DECISION SE TROUVE LEGALEMENT JUSTIFIEE ;

QUE LA CRITIQUE DU MOYEN NE SAURAIT DONC ETRE ADMISE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 19 MAI 1961 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS (6EME CH). NO 62-20.058. DAME Y... C/ EPOUX X.... PRESIDENT : M. VERDIER. RAPPORTEUR : M. LATRILLE. AVOCAT GENERAL : M. FENIE. AVOCATS : MM. SAINT-MARC ET GOUTET.