JURITEXT000006962010 Généré par l'IA

Sale of Defective Goods: Burden of Proof for Pre-Delivery Defect

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006962010

Autorité / Tribunal Cour de cassation

Juridiction

France (FR)

Date de la décision 1963-05-24

Issue du litige Partiellement admis (Partially Allowed)

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

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

A party, having contracted for the sale of goods and subsequently paid a deposit, sought rescission of the contract due to an alleged defect in the goods, demanding the return of the deposit and damages, but the lower court rejected this claim, finding that the buyer had failed to prove the defect existed at the time of delivery and that the seller had not engaged in fraud; the Supreme Court quashed this decision, reasoning that in a sale requiring compliance with specific technical standards, the seller warrants that the goods conform to those standards at the time of delivery, and the buyer is not obligated to prove the exact cause or origin of the defect, only that it existed upon delivery, thereby shifting the burden of proof regarding the pre-existence of the defect to the seller if the stated technical specifications were not met.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Sale of Defective Goods: Burden of Proof for Pre-Delivery Defect: A party, having contracted for the sale of goods and subsequently paid a deposit, sought rescission of the contract due to an alleged defect in the goods, demanding the return of the deposit and damages, but the lower court rejected this claim, finding that the buyer had failed to prove the defect existed at the time of delivery and that the seller had not engaged in fraud; the Supreme Court quashed this decision, reasoning that in a sale requiring compliance with specific technical standards, the seller warrants that the goods conform to those standards at the time of delivery, and the buyer is not obligated to prove the exact cause or origin of the defect, only that it existed upon delivery, thereby shifting the burden of proof regarding the pre-existence of the defect to the seller if the stated technical specifications were not met.