DP 1933. 1. 65 Case Cie d’assurances Le Lloyd de France v. F.
21 March 1932
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Professor B. S. Markesinis

Cour de cassation

The Court:

Given that article 420(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure grants jurisdiction to the tribunal in the place where the promise was made and the goods delivered; given that a promise is formed and the contract finalised by the acceptance of the offer as from the moment when this acceptance takes place; given that in response to a letter to F. from Lloyd de France dated 6 July 1927 containing the terms of his possible appointment as company inspector F. accepted the terms by letter to the company which he despatched from Gannat on 14 August 1927; given that by letter of 23 January 1929 the company proposed different terms and F. accepted these in a letter which he posted in Gannat on 29 January and that it was therefore at Gannat, where F.’s acceptance took place, that the contract was formed; given, furthermore, that according to the original letter of 6 July 1927 F.’s services as inspector were to be carried out at Gannat and in the surrounding département, Gannat was not only the place of the contract but also the place of delivery, in this case of F.’s services;

Given furthermore that jurisdiction is conferred by article 420(3) on the tribunal of the place where payment is to be made and is in such general terms as to apply to all contracts in the commercial field, necessarily including contracts for services, and that it emerges from the correspondence of the parties, especially the letters from the company dated 23 September 1927, 10 January and 5 March 1928, that the moneys due to F. were to be paid by cheques drawn on the Société générale at Gannat, where they were payable and encashable; given that the sending of a cheque does not amount to payment by the debtor or release him forthwith from liability, such payment and release occurring only when the cheque is definitively cashed; that thus it is the place where the cheque is to be cashed and not the place from which it is sent that determines jurisdiction under article 420(3);

Given that the commercial tribunal at Montluçon was correctly seised of the case under article 420 (2) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application by Lloyd de France and declares that the tribunal of Montluçon has jurisdiction in this case.

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.