Buyer v. Seller over Roof Tile Defects and Supplier Warranty Admissibility
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAIn a dispute where a buyer sued the seller for damages due to hidden defects in roof tiles, the seller called their own supplier into warranty; the supplier, which had previously entered into judicial settlement proceedings and was declared "in good standing" upon homologation of a subsequent concordat, had its objection to the warranty claim dismissed by the appellate court, but the high court quashed the decision because the appellate court failed to address the supplier's argument that the original claimant had not demonstrated relief from the forfeiture incurred and did not specify whether the concordat contained a clause allowing return to a better financial situation, thus insufficiently justifying the admissibility of the action.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 41, ALINEA 1 ET 2 DE LA LOI DU 13 JUILLET 1967; Buyer v. Seller over Roof Tile Defects and Supplier Warranty Admissibility: In a dispute where a buyer sued the seller for damages due to hidden defects in roof tiles, the seller called their own supplier into warranty; the supplier, which had previously entered into judicial settlement proceedings and was declared "in good standing" upon homologation of a subsequent concordat, had its objection to the warranty claim dismissed by the appellate court, but the high court quashed the decision because the appellate court failed to address the supplier's argument that the original claimant had not demonstrated relief from the forfeiture incurred and did not specify whether the concordat contained a clause allowing return to a better financial situation, thus insufficiently justifying the admissibility of the action.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThis article concerning the main ground for the decision was cited in the reasoning section leading to the cassation, although it was not explicitly repeated in the dispositive section. However, as the entire judgment hinges on the interpretation and application of this article regarding the legal status (bonis/règlement judiciaire), and the court is overturning the lower court's decision based on the failure to properly address the consequences under this law, it represents the main legal basis for the cassation.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE, PRIS EN SES DEUX BRANCHES :
VU L'ARTICLE 41, ALINEA 1 ET 2 DE LA LOI DU 13 JUILLET 1967, ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE BRUA ASSIGNE EN PAIEMENT DE DOMMAGES ET INTERETS PAR CERVERA EN RAISON D'UN VICE CACHE DE TUILES QU'IL LUI AVAIT VENDUES EN 1970 A APPELE LE 30 DECEMBRE 1976 EN GARANTIE SON PROPRE FOURNISSEUR, LA SOCIETE LAURENTIES, FABRICANT VENDEUR DESDITES TUILES, QUI AVAIT ETE MISE EN REGLEMENT JUDICIAIRE LE 9 AVRIL 1976 ; ATTENDU QUE POUR DECLARER CETTE ACTION RECEVABLE LA COUR D'APPEL A RETENU QUE LA SOCIETE LAURENTIES QUI AVAIT BENEFICIE D'UN CONCORDAT HOMOLOGUE LE 13 OCTOBRE 1978 ETAIT REVENUE IN BONIS ; ATTENDU QU'EN SE DETERMINANT AINSI ET SANS REPONDRE AUX CONCLUSIONS DE LA SOCIETE LAURENTIES QUI SOUTENAIT QUE BRUA N'AVAIT JAMAIS PRODUIT NI DEMANDE A ETRE RELEVE DE LA FORCLUSION QU'IL AVAIT ENCOURUE ET SANS PRECISER SI LE CONCORDAT COMPORTAIT UNE CLAUSE DE RETOUR A MEILLEURE FORTUNE, LA COUR D'APPEL N'A PAS LEGALEMENT JUSTIFIE SA DECISION ;
PAR CES MOTIFS :
CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU LE 3 JUILLET 1979, ENTRE LES PARTIES, PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PAU ; REMET, EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT ARRET, ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL DE TOULOUSE, A CE DESIGNEE PAR DELIBERATION SPECIALES PRISE EN LA CHAMBRE DU CONSEIL ; CONDAMNE BRUA ET CERVERA, ENVERS LA DEMANDERESSE, AUX DEPENS LIQUIDES A LA SOMME DE CENT VINGT HUIT FRANCS TRENTE DEUX CENTIMES, EN CE NON COMPRIS LE COUT DES SIGNIFICATIONS DU PRESENT ARRET ;